Opinion ID: 1768691
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Count IIIThe Gaudet/Chenier Matter

Text: Keith Gaudet and Keith Chenier were arrested in New Orleans on December 30, 1999. On January 2, 2000, respondent visited the men in jail and solicited their representation. Respondent also sought and obtained permission from the men to withdraw $15,000 in cash from their bank safety deposit box, and he did so on January 4, 2000. [1] On January 12, 2000, respondent visited Mr. Gaudet in jail, at which time he terminated respondent's representation. Mr. Gaudet also requested that respondent return the $15,000 he had received a week earlier. Respondent returned $10,000 to Mr. Gaudet on February 1, 2000, but though he had done little work in the criminal matter, [2] claimed the remaining $5,000 was his legal fee. Respondent has failed to account for any earned portion of the legal fee and failed to refund the unearned portion of the fee. On January 18, 2000, Mr. Gaudet and Mr. Chenier filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. On February 3, 2000, the ODC forwarded a copy of the complaint to respondent by certified mail. Respondent failed to reply to the complaint. The ODC thereafter served respondent with a subpoena compelling him to appear and answer the complaint under oath. Respondent failed to appear. The ODC alleges that respondent's conduct in this matter violates the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16(d), 7.2 (direct contact with prospective clients), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act reflecting adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g).