Opinion ID: 2534822
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Count IVThe Stout Matter

Text: As previously noted, respondent was placed on interim suspension by order of this court rendered on November 16, 2005. In May 2006, Gloria Castille Stout paid respondent the sum of $3,000 to handle a legal matter involving title to succession property. [7] Mrs. Stout gave respondent court records and other documents relating to the property, and several days later, respondent told her he would need an additional $30,000 to open the succession. Mrs. Stout declined to pay respondent any additional money, and she requested a refund of the $3,000 she had paid. [8] Respondent refused to comply with Mrs. Stout's request, prompting her to file a complaint with the ODC in June 2006. Respondent failed to reply to the complaint, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena to compel his sworn statement. [9] In September 2006, Mrs. Stout filed a claim against respondent with the Louisiana State Bar Association Client Assistance Fund. [10] In response, respondent asserted he simply agreed to read over the documents provided by Mrs. Stout, explain them to her, and advise her if she needed the services of an attorney. He further indicated the $3,000 paid by Mrs. Stout was for research. The ODC alleged respondent's conduct in the Stout matter violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.4, 1.15, 1.16(d), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 5.5(a), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).