 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Parker3/15/2002
r becoming eligible to do so.
In determining an appropriate sanction in the instant case, we believe the approach of Chatelain is instructive. Accordingly, our determination of a sanction will be based upon the appropriate sanction we would have imposed if these charges had been before the court at the same time as the charges in respondent's previous disciplinary proceedings.
As the hearing committee observed, the baseline sanction for respondent's actions in the instant case, had they been considered in isolation, would probably be a suspension. However, respondent's actions in this case, combined with his similar conduct in both Parker I and Parker II, demonstrates an overall pattern of lack of concern for his clients' welfare. Numerous aggravating factors are present. We are unable to discern any mitigating factors from the record.
Had the instant charges been filed simultaneously with those charges forming the basis of respondent's earlier disbarments, they would have only reinforced our view that respondent lacks the moral fitness to practice law and must be disbarred, both as a sanction for his misconduct and to protect the public. Therefore, as in Chatelain, we will adjudge respondent guilty of additional violations which warrant disbarrment and which will be added to his record for consideration in the event he applies for readmission after becoming eligible to do so. We further emphasize that although respondent may have a procedural right to apply for readmission, this court retains absolute discretion to grant or deny such an application. In light of respondent's lengthy history of egregious misconduct, this court will carefully scrutinize any application for readmission with a critical eye.
In sum, without passing on the question of whether we could apply the permanent disbarrment rules to this case, we elect in our discretion to resolve this case under the principles set forth in Chatelain. Accordingly, respondent is adjudged guilty of additional violations which warrant disbarrment and which will be added to his record for consideration in the event he applies for readmission after becoming eligible to do so.
DECREE
For the reasons assigned, respondent, Leonard O. Parker, Jr., is adjudged guilty of additional violations which warrant disbarrment and which will be added to his record for consideration in the event he applies for readmission after becoming eligible to do so. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, ยง10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court's judgment until paid.
Page 1 2 3 4 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|