Opinion ID: 1693418
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: order of the disciplinary board

Text: On November 18, 2003, the disciplinary board ordered that respondent receive a public reprimand and that he be required to attend Ethics School. Based on its review of the record, the board found the following facts were proven by clear and convincing evidence: 1. Respondent was admitted to practice law on October 5, 1990; 2. Respondent was hired to work at the Windhorst firm on May 1, 1997; 3. On June 17, 1997, respondent and Daryl Higgins of the Windhorst firm met with a potential client, Allison Curtis; 4. At the conclusion of this meeting, Ms. Curtis entered into a contingent fee contract with the Windhorst firm; 5. Following the meeting respondent was assigned to complete various tasks in connection with the Curtis matter. These tasks included, but were not limited to, arranging for medical treatment for Ms. Curtis, obtaining releases from Ms. Curtis, and preparing a petition for damages; 6. On April 24, 1998, respondent prepared and filed in Orleans Parish a petition for damages in connection with the Curtis matter; 7. On July 14, 1998, respondent accepted employment with the law firm of Aubert & Pajares, which represented the defendants in the Curtis matter; 8. Prior to extending an offer of employment to respondent, Christopher Aubert asked respondent about his prior involvement in the Curtis matter; 9. Respondent advised Mr. Aubert that he had only worked on the Curtis matter for one hour; 10. Subsequently, Mr. Higgins filed a motion to disqualify Aubert & Pajares from continuing their representation of the defendants in the Curtis matter; 11. In the motion, Mr. Higgins stated that respondent had worked fifteen hours on the Curtis matter while Semployed at the Windhorst firm; 12. In response, respondent prepared and submitted an affidavit to explain to the [c]ourt the fifteen hours that [he] was claimed to have worked on the Curtis file by Mr. Higgins; 13. Respondent stated that in response to a conversation he had had with one of the partners in the Windhorst firm point[ing] out the necessity of producing more billable hours, respondent found the answer in the contingency fee files that [he] had ... Specifically, respondent put time down to contingency fee files knowing that it made no difference to the client, or his recovery, how many hours [he] worked on that file. In this manner, [respondent] could keep [his] job and no client would receive a bill for unnecessary or non-existent work; and 14. While at the Windhorst firm, in connection with the Curtis matter, respondent listed hours on his timesheets for work not actually performed. Based upon these facts, the board determined that respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent intentionally indicated on his timesheets that he performed work in a client's legal matter that he now states he did not actually perform. Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the board found respondent intentionally violated duties owed to his client, to the public, and as a professional. Respondent's actions did not result in actual injury to Ms. Curtis, but did result in actual injury to the legal profession. By his actions, respondent has violated the ethical standards of the legal profession and has tarnished the image of the profession. Respondent also owes the public a duty to maintain standards of personal integrity. By misrepresenting the number of hours on his timesheets, respondent has failed to maintain such standards. The baseline sanction for respondent's misconduct ranges from a public reprimand to a suspension. [2] The board found the only mitigating factor present is the absence of a prior disciplinary record. In aggravation, the board recognized respondent's dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, [3] and refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct. Under these circumstances, the board concluded that a public reprimand is appropriate. Accordingly, the board ordered that a public reprimand be issued against respondent, with the condition that within one year, respondent attend and successfully complete the Louisiana State Bar Association's Ethics School. One board member dissented and would recommend that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three months. Both parties sought review of the board's ruling by this court. We ordered the parties to submit briefs addressing the issue of whether the record supports the disciplinary board's report. After reviewing the briefs filed by both parties, we docketed the matter for oral argument.