Opinion ID: 2534730
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: rudy aguilar

Text: Mr. Aguilar is the managing partner of McGlinchey. He oversees all of the firm's offices across the country, but practices in the Baton Rouge office. Mr. Aguilar's testimony was initially similar to that of Ms. Klein, touching on respondent's performance at the firm golf tournament, the intervention with Mr. Leary, and respondent's admission to and successful completion of the Pine Grove treatment program. Thereafter, the firm asked respondent to execute a LAP agreement as a condition of his continued employment. According to Mr. Aguilar, he and respondent discussed the confidentiality provision in the LAP contract on several occasions. Specifically, respondent was concerned that information could get outside of the law firm, with what he thought was over broad language of the L.A.P. contract. Therefore, respondent wanted to revise the confidentiality provision to say that Bill Leary's group could not tell anybody else, and thus, [McGlinchey] would not be able to tell anybody else either. After discussing the matter with Mr. Leary and another partner in the firm who had successfully participated in LAP, Mr. Aguilar told respondent the firm would not agree to make any changes in the LAP contract. Mr. Aguilar testified that everything went fine for a while, until respondent tested positive for cocaine in March 2007. Mr. Aguilar went to the New Orleans office at that time and met with respondent and Ms. Klein. Mr. Aguilar's testimony regarding the meeting was as follows: A. Jack said he was under a lot of stress from lots of different things and that his, I believe, his daughter was getting married. And all kind ofI don't remember all of the details. But we said, Jack, we shouldn't do this, but we are going to, instead of terminating you immediately, as we said we would do, as we should do, we're going to give you one more chance.    Q. During that conversation, did Mr. Clegg acknowledge he had used cocaine? A. Yes. He did. He acknowledged it and he said that it wasWell, I do remember him also saying, you know, There's the possibility of a false positive. And lots of things canI'm not going to fight that with you. I think were his actual words but it was, you know, to me it was Yes, I failed the test. And it proved positive. In response to the questions of the hearing committee members, Mr. Aguilar reiterated that respondent never admitted during this conversation that he used drugs: He did not say, I admit I used cocaine or drugs. The first time, my recollection is that he said, There can be false positives. ... And he said, But I'm not going to fight that with you because it's a losing battle, or something like that. He also said, I'm under a lot of stress from all these other things, my daughter is getting married. He was having a problem with one of our partners. They were having disagreements or, you know, they were friends and no longer friends. I didn't get into too much of the detail with him at that time. And he said, you know, I'm under a lot of stress and, you know, give me another chance. So I mean, did he actually say the words? No. But was my impression of the conversation that he knew that he had taken it? Yes. Returning to his testimony on direct, Mr. Aguilar testified that approximately forty-five days later, respondent had another positive drug screen. Asked whether respondent admitted using cocaine on this occasion, Mr. Aguilar testified that respondent didn't deny it. But I don't remember him saying, he did. Mr. Aguilar told respondent to immediately stop doing work for clients, but respondent refused, saying he had to be in New York for a deposition. At this point, Mr. Aguilar informed respondent that if he did not stop his plans, he would call a partners' meeting and recommend respondent's expulsion from the firm. Respondent did not comply with Mr. Aguilar's request, and so he was expelled from the firm. Mr. Aguilar testified that after the second drug screen, the firm considered whether it had an obligation to report to the ODC that we have what we believe to be an impaired lawyer, going to go take depositions. The partners contacted Rick Stanley for advice in that regard and ultimately filed a complaint with the ODC suggesting respondent posed a threat of harm to the public. Mr. Aguilar testified he did not believe the firm had an ethical obligation to report respondent at any time previously, because we had him very well supervised so that we make sure that he did not cause a problem for us or the clients. Mr. Aguilar also testified that the firm has had other impaired lawyers go through the LAP program successfully, and the firm has not reported those lawyers to the ODC.