 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Lucas8/30/2002
on was the appropriate baseline sanction. As mitigating factors, it recognized respondent's absence of a prior disciplinary record, absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, timely good faith effort to make restitution and full disclosure to the disciplinary system. The sole aggravating factor identified by the board was respondent's substantial experience in the practice of law. Accordingly, the board recommended the consent discipline be adopted and that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, fully deferred, subject to a two year period of probation with the proposed conditions.
Neither respondent nor the ODC objected to the disciplinary board's recommendation.
DISCUSSION
Although this matter arises from a petition for consent discipline, Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 20(B) provides that the extent of discipline to be imposed is subject to review. In determining an appropriate sanction, we are mindful that disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession, and deter future misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Reis, 513 So. 2d 1173 (La. 1987). The discipline to be imposed depends upon the facts of each case and the seriousness of the offenses involved, considered in light of any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Whittington, 459 So. 2d 520 (La. 1984).
The record reveals that respondent failed to properly disburse funds belonging to a client or third parties, which clearly constitutes professional misconduct. However, respondent's misconduct stemmed in large measure from inadequate office accounting procedures. Upon learning of the error, respondent took prompt action to rectify the consequences of his action. Under these circumstances, we conclude respondent's actions were not based on any dishonest or selfish motive.
In similar cases, we have imposed fully deferred suspensions, combined with probation. See, e.g., In re: Crooks, 00-1359 (La. 6/23/00), 762 So. 2d 1077 (a one year and one day suspension, fully deferred, conditioned upon a two year probation was imposed on an attorney stemming from conversion of three clients' funds and failure to supervise his non-lawyer assistants). Such an approach gives the lawyer an opportunity to correct any office problems, while at the same time protecting the public from future misconduct.
Accordingly, we will accept the petition for consent discipline, and impose a fully deferred suspension, subject to probation with conditions.
DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the disciplinary board, and considering the record filed herein, it is ordered that George Edward Lucas, Jr. be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years. It is further ordered that this suspension shall be fully deferred and respondent shall be placed on supervised probation for a period of two years, subject to the conditions set forth in the petition for consent discipline. Any violation of the conditions of probation or any other misconduct during the probationary period may be grounds for making the deferred portion of the suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court's judgment until paid.
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.
|
|