Opinion ID: 1091057
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Count XIII (A-C)

Text: Respondent represented three clients in a civil rights action filed on February 26, 2002 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The magistrate judge recommended the complaint be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and respondent filed an objection on behalf of his clients. In April 2002, the chief judge dismissed the complaint and ordered respondent to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on him for violating the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondent addressed the court but was ultimately sanctioned. [8] Respondent failed to comply with the sanction and was ordered to appear in court on September 5, 2003 to explain his failure. When respondent failed to appear, he was ordered to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court and show cause why he should not be suspended from practicing before the Middle District of Louisiana. Respondent failed to appear at the October 3, 2003 contempt hearing, and on November 4, 2003, he was suspended from practicing in the Middle District until further notice. On November 12, 2003, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana received notice of respondent's suspension in the Middle District. The Eastern District ordered respondent to show cause why it should not impose the same discipline, but respondent failed to respond. On January 9, 2004, the Eastern District imposed reciprocal discipline retroactive to the date of the Middle District's order. In February 2004, the ODC notified respondent of allegations of misconduct stemming from the above suspensions. Despite receiving the notice at an address in Virginia, respondent failed to respond. The ODC alleges respondent's conduct in this matter violated Rules 3.4(c) and 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The ODC further alleges respondent's conduct in all of the above matters constitutes a violation of Rule 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.