Opinion ID: 2534730
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: donna klein

Text: Ms. Klein was until 2009 the managing partner of McGlinchey's New Orleans office. Ms. Klein testified that she became concerned when she received reports that following the firm's return to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, respondent was not coming into the office regularly and was not submitting his billing in a timely fashion. In the summer of 2006, the firm hosted a golf tournament, during which respondent behaved erratically and aggressively and told an off-colored joke that had concerned a number of people, both male and female. Several of respondent's friends also expressed concern that he was having problems with substances. [6] Based upon this information, Ms. Klein contacted Mr. Leary, who agreed to help the partners of the firm confront respondent and offer him the opportunity to go into a treatment facility at the firm's expense. On the day of the intervention, Ms. Klein was present with respondent and Mr. Leary, as well as the firm's managing partner, Rudy Aguilar, and respondent's section head, Henri Wolbrette. During this meeting, respondent admitted he had been abusing crack cocaine and other drugs. The partners told respondent they wanted to help, and arrangements had been made for him to be admitted to Pine Grove. The partners also told respondent that he would have to comply with the treatment recommendations of the doctors at Pine Grove, sign a LAP contract, and stay sober, or else he would lose his job at McGlinchey. Respondent ultimately agreed to get help and went to Pine Grove. After he came home in October 2006, he executed a confidentiality waiver so that the partners could communicate with Mr. Leary about his participation in LAP. Ms. Klein testified that in March 2007, Mr. Leary contacted her by telephone and reported that one of respondent's drug screens was positive for cocaine. Ms. Klein testified that she and Mr. Aguilar confronted respondent, as follows: Q. Did Mr. Clegg admit that he had used cocaine? A. Yes. Q. Had relapsed? A. Yes.... WeHe talked about, you know, he said he had just been upset, that it wasn't going to happen again.... The partners accepted respondent's explanation and decided to give him another chance, notwithstanding their earlier warning to him that drug use would not be tolerated. Nevertheless, Ms. Klein testified that the partners did tighten up the oversight of him for client protection. Unfortunately, in April, Mr. Leary called Ms. Klein again and told her that respondent had another positive drug screen. Ms. Klein testified that she called respondent into her office and asked him what happened: A. He said that relapse is part of the disease. And that he'd had a relapse. Q. Did he indicate to youhe acknowledged he had used cocaine? A. He had used.[ [7] ] At this point, believing the firm couldn't take a risk on him working on client matters, Ms. Klein asked respondent to resign. However, he refused to do so. The equity members of the firm then scheduled a meeting and voted to expel respondent from the firm on Friday, May 4, 2007. Because of concerns that respondent was impaired in the representation of clients, [8] the partners also decided to consult with outside counsel for advice regarding the firm's obligation to report the matter to the ODC. Ms. Klein contacted New Orleans attorney Rick Stanley, who recommended that a report be made. On July 6, 2007, respondent executed a release, severance, and non-disparagement agreement with McGlinchey. The firm asked respondent to sign this document to insure compliance with our requirements and the L.A.P. agreement. And in the event we had to report something, or had to advise somebody, of either an illegality or something like that, that we would have the ability to do that. The release, severance, and non-disparagement agreement contains a paragraph which specifically pertains to the firm's release of information to the ODC. In response to the questions of the hearing committee members, Ms. Klein testified that she had a number of conversations with respondent about the firm's request for a waiver of confidentiality. Specifically, she wanted to make sure that the partners had access to information about respondent's progress in recovery and his compliance with the LAP agreement, and in her opinion, Jack understood that. She further testified that she never told respondent the firm would not release the information it obtained, and she wouldn't have said that because it's not true. Nevertheless, Ms. Klein testified that the firm did make every effort to protect respondent's confidentiality, to the extent that was possible. For example, during the period when respondent was in treatment at the Pine Grove facility, clients of the firm were not told the reason for his absence from the office, and within the firm, only people in a need to know position were told about respondent's issues. With respect to reporting respondent to the ODC, Ms. Klein was asked why the firm did not feel the need to make its report at the time of the intervention, or even at the time of the first failed drug test. Ms. Klein responded: Because he was in a protected environment, getting treatment for the problem that prompted the intervention, and he was representing clients. And he wasn't out there either harming himself or harming others.... And as far as I was concerned, as long as he would agree to helping himself, and us helping him, [then] he was not a danger to anybody. On cross-examination, Ms. Klein clarified that she tried to protect respondent's confidentiality as to clients and others within the firm because she thought it was the right thing to do, not because she thought some statute applied. She explained that it was not her intent to embarrass respondent or tell anybody about what had happened unless they needed to know.