 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Lucas8/30/2002
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
This matter arises from a petition for consent discipline filed by respondent, George Edward Lucas, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Louisiana.
UNDERLYING FACTS
In January, 1999, Margaret Wallis retained respondent to represent her and her daughter, Karen Wallis, in a personal injury matter stemming from an automobile accident. Respondent instituted suit on behalf of his clients, and obtained a settlement on their behalf for $24,203.98. Of this amount, respondent retained $4,934.10 to pay third party medical expenses incurred by Karen.
Subsequently, Mrs. Wallis advised respondent that she had personally satisfied some of the outstanding medical expenses. According to respondent, he entered into an agreement with Mrs. Wallis whereby he would give her a credit for the medical expenses she paid against outstanding attorney's fees owed to him by Mrs. Wallis stemming from an unrelated divorce case that his law firm was handling on her behalf. Respondent then paid what he believed were the remaining amounts owed to third party medical providers.
At some point thereafter, respondent learned that his paralegal had not obtained all of Karen's outstanding medical bills, and, as a result, all of her medical expenses
had not been paid. Believing the error to be his fault, respondent satisfied the outstanding medical expenses out of his own pocket. He then provided $688.26 in restitution to Karen, representing the amount he withheld from her share of the settlement as medical expenses that he mistakenly believed had been satisfied by Mrs. Wallis and which had been retained by him for his attorney's fees in Mrs. Wallis' unrelated domestic case.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Consent Discipline
Upon receiving a complaint from Mrs. Wallis, the ODC conduct an investigation. Prior to the institution of formal charges, respondent submitted a petition for consent discipline and stipulation of facts. In that petition, he admitted his conduct violated Rules 1.7 (conflict of interest) and 1.15 (failure to promptly account for or deliver funds or property owed to a client or third party and failure to maintain financial records) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In mitigation, respondent noted that he accepted full responsibility for his actions, which he alleged arose out of his "gross negligence" in the managing of his financial records. He also pointed out the amount involved ($688.26) was small and that he rectified the harm suffered to his clients and the public. For his misconduct, respondent proposed that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, fully deferred, followed by a two year period of supervised probation with conditions.
The ODC submitted a written concurrence in connection with the consent petition. While it recognized respondent's negligent conduct resulted in minimal injury , the ODC supported monitoring of respondent's practice due to the seriousness of the mishandling of his trust account.
Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board
Based on respondent's admission of misconduct, the board determined respondent knowingly violated a duty to his clients by engaging in a conflict of interest and failing to safeguard client property. However, the board recognized respondent's misconduct stemmed from improper office accounting procedures and pointed out respondent made timely restitution to his client and the third party medical providers.
Relying on Standards 4.12 and 4.32 of the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the board determined suspensi
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.
|
|