Opinion ID: 1768691
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Count XIThe Webber Matter

Text: In December 1997, Richard Webber retained respondent to represent him in a criminal matter. Respondent represented Mr. Webber at trial and filed an appeal on his behalf after he was found guilty. The court of appeal affirmed Mr. Webber's conviction and sentence. State v. Webber, 99-23 (La.App. 5th Cir.7/27/99), 742 So.2d 952. However, Mr. Webber was unaware that respondent had filed the appeal in the first instance, and respondent never informed his client of the court of appeal's ruling. Furthermore, respondent failed to turn over to Mr. Webber the trial and sentencing transcripts he used to prepare the appeal, thereby hindering Mr. Webber's efforts in filing an application for post-conviction relief. [7] In July 2000, Mr. Webber filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. On August 18, 2000, the ODC forwarded a copy of the complaint to respondent by certified mail. Respondent failed to reply to the complaint. The ODC thereafter served respondent with a subpoena compelling him to appear and answer the complaint under oath. Respondent failed to appear. The ODC alleges that respondent's conduct in this matter violates the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.4, 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g).