Opinion ID: 8490
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State Disciplinary Proceedings

Text: In 1987, Henrietta Reed engaged Appellant to obtain past due child support owed by her former husband. Appellant obtained a judgment on behalf of Reed which ordered payment of past due child support in the amount of $311 as well as awarding $1,000 in 2 attorney’s fees. Apparently pursuant to a memorandum from appellant to Reed, appellant received child support payments on Reed’s behalf which he was then to distribute to her. However, appellant received payments totaling $2,879.25, but paid out only $1,725.55 to Reed. Reed discharged appellant and initiated a complaint with the Louisiana State Bar Association. Appellant alleged in that proceeding that he was owed by Reed fees totaling $6,513. On October 12, 1989, a hearing was held before the Committee on Professional Responsibility. It was alleged that appellant had failed to promptly forward funds to a client, had improperly commingled client funds, and had charged an unreasonable legal fee for his services. At the hearing, appellant challenged allegations that he had failed to promptly forward funds to a client and had commingled client funds with his own by introducing the February 7, 1987 memorandum which he had sent to Reed which provided: “all checks received pursuant to a judgment resulting from litigation shall be sent to me for distribution.” Appellant also introduced a copy of the petition signed by Reed which requested a percentage of her former spouse’s retirement pay as community property in addition to back child support as evidence that he had provided services beyond those described by Reed. Appellant introduced sixty-three exhibits in all at the hearing. On November 22, 1989, appellant sent a letter to Mr. Fred G. Ours, Assistant Counsel for the Louisiana State Bar Association, withdrawing all demand letters to Reed. Appellant was 3 subsequently notified on March 30, 1990 that the Disciplinary Board was planning to issue a Letter of Public Reprimand in the matter. Appellant appealed this decision to the Louisiana Supreme Court on April 12, 1990. Meanwhile, appellant sent a letter to Reed dated April 17, 1990 demanding payment of $3,185 of the $6,513 appellant claimed he was originally owed, and subsequently filed suit to collect the reduced amount on May 10, 1990. The Supreme Court affirmed the Committee’s decision to issue a public reprimand on May 25, 1990, and denied appellant’s petition to stay the issuance of the reprimand on June 11, 1990. The Letter of Public Reprimand issued the following day. Appellant then petitioned the Louisiana Supreme Court for rehearing which was ultimately denied on September 14, 1990. Appellant voluntarily dismissed his suit against Reed on October 17, 1990. A second disciplinary proceeding was initiated by the Disciplinary Counsel for the Louisiana State Bar Association through a two count formal charge filed on March 15, 1991. Count I alleged that appellant had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by bringing a claim in bad faith against Reed to collect a portion of the fee that the Disciplinary Board had determined was unreasonable.1 Specifically, appellant had informed the Bar that the demand was withdrawn at the time that the Board was considering disciplinary action against him only to assert a demand and bring 1 The Committee on Professional Responsibility was renamed the Disciplinary Board as the result of changes in Rule 19 of the Rules of the Louisiana Supreme Court effective April 1, 1990. 4 suit for a portion of the disputed fee once he was informed that a public reprimand would issue. Count II involved an unrelated complaint against appellant arising out of his representation of Mrs. Luitgardis Marie Tell Wright in an estate matter. Appellant handled the succession of Wright’s late husband’s, and took possession of certain stock certificates and title documents in order to prepare the succession documents. Appellant took possession of these documents in early 1987 and a Judgment of Possession placing these items in the possession of Wright was signed on November 6, 1987. However, a fee dispute arose between appellant and Wright, and Wright sent a letter on January 5, 1988 demanding the return of the documents. Appellant responded by letter that “[i]t is customary to return such property in person,” and that Wright should have her attorney or representative contact appellant. Appellant also informed Wright that suit would be brought against her for the fees. A Notice of Privilege and Lien was filed with the Clerk of Court for Jefferson Parish by Robert C. Evans in whose office appellant worked. A suit was also brought against Wright for the fees by the Law Office of Robert C. Evans. The formal charge alleged that appellant had failed to promptly surrender property to a client at the termination of representation as required by the Rules of Professional Conduct. On July 24, 1991, a hearing was held before Hearing Committee No. 11 of the Disciplinary Board for purposes of considering the charges alleged against appellant. The Hearing Committee issued 5 findings of fact and conclusions which found that: (1) appellant had not violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by bringing a suit against Reed in bad faith; and (2) that appellant had failed to promptly return property to a client as required by the Rules of Professional Conduct. Therefore, the Hearing Committee recommended that a public reprimand be issued on Count II. The Disciplinary Board issued its Report and Recommendation on August 31, 1993. The Board rejected the Hearing Committee’s conclusion that appellant had not acted in bad faith in bringing suit against Reed to collect the disputed fees. The Hearing Committee had concluded that appellant was entitled to pursue his action for fees until the disciplinary proceedings against him were resolved. However, the Board noted that appellant had written a letter withdrawing his demand, and concluded that “[i]t was wrong to threaten and file suit after purportedly withdrawing the demand in order to influence the disposition of the disciplinary proceeding.” The Board concurred in the Hearing Committee’s conclusion regarding Count II that appellant had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to promptly return the disputed documents to Wright. Therefore, the Board determined that appellant should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months. On March 18, 1994, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion accepting the findings of the Disciplinary Board, but ordering a suspension of six months rather than the three 6 months recommended by the Board. See In re Forman, 634 So.2d 330 (La. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 207 (1994).