 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Deshotels12/12/2003
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, John Blake Deshotels, who is currently on interim suspension for threat of harm to the public. In re: Deshotels, 01-3219 (La. 12/12/01), 803 So. 2d 967.
FORMAL CHARGES
The formal charges, which were filed on January 7, 2002, consist of seventeen counts of misconduct, as follows:
Count I - The Marcantel & Pierce Matters
Respondent was retained to represent Steve Marcantel and James Pierce in connection with criminal matters. In the Marcantel matter, respondent was ordered to file an appellate brief, but he failed to do so. Subsequently, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal ordered respondent to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for failure to comply with an order of the court. Similarly, respondent failed to file a brief in the Pierce matter, and once again, the Third Circuit ordered respondent to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. Following a hearing on October 7, 1999, the Third Circuit found respondent in contempt of court with respect to both cases, and imposed a $500 fine, a 60-day jail sentence, suspended, and a two-year period of unsupervised probation.
The ODC alleges that respondent's conduct constitutes a violation of the following provisions of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in the representation of a client), 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
Count II - The Godeaux Matter
Kay Godeaux retained respondent to represent her son in a personal injury matter. Respondent settled the claim without consulting his client, and thereafter he failed to provide his client with an accounting of the settlement funds. Respondent also failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the complaint filed by Ms. Godeaux.
The ODC alleges that respondent's conduct constitutes a violation of the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.15 (safekeeping property of clients or third persons), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), 8.4(a), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(g) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation).
Count III - The Pete Matter
Linda Pete retained respondent to represent her daughter in a personal injury matter. Respondent failed to communicate with Ms. Pete during the course of the representation, and after he settled the claim, he failed to provide Ms. Pete with an accounting of the settlement funds. Respondent also failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the complaint filed by Ms. Pete.
The ODC alleges that respondent's conduct constitutes a violation of the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.4, 1.15, 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(g).
Count IV - The Pierce Matter
In connection with the representation of James Pierce that is the subject of Count I, respondent failed to file an appeal on behalf of his client with this court, and refused to refund the unearned fee he was paid. Respondent also failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the complaint filed by Mr. Pierce.
The ODC alleges that respondent's conduct constitutes a violation of the following provisions of the Rules of Profe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|