 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Bergeron9/15/2000
This attorney disciplinary proceeding arises from two counts of formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against Michael Bergeron, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Louisiana, but currently on interim suspension.
UNDERLYING FACTS
In 1992, James E. Still retained respondent to handle a personal injury matter. Subsequently, Mr. Still made several efforts to communicate with respondent regarding the status of his case, but was unsuccessful. Mr. Still ultimately learned respondent had his telephone number disconnected and had vacated his law office. As a result, Mr. Still had to retain new counsel. Despite numerous attempts, Mr. Still and his new counsel were unable to obtain Mr. Still's files from respondent.
On December 1, 1997, eight months from his last communication with respondent, Mr. Still filed a complaint with the ODC. The ODC mailed a certified letter to respondent requesting a response to the complaint. The letter was returned to the ODC with the designation "unclaimed."
The ODC subsequently issued subpoenas on two separate occasions compelling respondent's appearance and production of documents; however, service could not be effectuated on respondent. The ODC made several attempts to locate respondent, but was unable to do so.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Formal Charges
After investigation, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging several violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. When respondent failed to answer the charges, the hearing committee gave the parties time to file written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue of sanctions. The ODC submitted documentary evidence in support of its proposed sanction of disbarrment; respondent made no filing.
Hearing Committee Report
After consideration of the evidence, the hearing committee rendered its findings, concluding that respondent violated the professional rules as charged. While it determined there was clear and convincing evidence respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, it concluded there was no evidence presented regarding respondent's alleged abandonment of his law practice other than Mr. Still's statement that respondent vacated his office and disconnected his telephone.
Moreover, it noted there was insufficient evidence that respondent's conduct caused serious or potentially serious injury to his client.
Relying on the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined the baseline sanction is suspension. It found respondent's substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted in 1981) to be the only present aggravating factor and the absence of a prior disciplinary record to be the only applicable mitigating factor. Based on these findings, the committee recommended a suspension for a period of one year and one day as an appropriate sanction.
After the hearing committee rendered its recommendation, respondent contacted the ODC and indicated his professional misconduct stemmed from a "nervous breakdown caused by depression." Respondent and the ODC then filed a joint petition for interim suspension with this court "in an effort to protect the public and demonstrate an intent to cooperate with the ongoing investigation." This court granted the motion and placed respondent on interim suspension. In re: Bergeron, 99-1061 (La. 6/30/99), 738 So. 2d 1052.
Disciplinary Board Report
The disciplinary board concurred in the findings of the hearing committee and agreed the charges were proven by clear and convincing evidence. The board fo
Page 1 2 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|