 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Casanova11/22/2002
lient), 8.1(c), and 8.4(g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent answered the formal charges and generally denied any intentional misconduct.
Ms. Ban did not appear to testify at the formal hearing on the merits. As a result, the hearing committee recommended that both counts relating to the Ban matter be dismissed.
Counts X - XIII (The Bourgeois Matter)
In July 1995, Garry Bourgeois retained respondent to handle a wrongful death claim arising out of the drowning of his daughter, Dana Bourgeois. Respondent timely filed suit in the matter, but thereafter neglected the case, failed to communicate with his client, and failed to return Mr. Bourgeois' file to him upon the termination of the representation. In addition, respondent failed to answer the complaint filed against him by Mr. Bourgeois, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena by the ODC.
The ODC alleges that respondent's conduct in the Bourgeois matter violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 8.1(c), and 8.4(g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent answered the formal charges and generally denied any intentional misconduct.
After consideration, the hearing committee concluded the ODC proved these violations by clear and convincing evidence.
Counts XIV - XV (The Demarest Matter)
Candace Demarest retained respondent to handle a divorce and child custody matter. Respondent neglected the matter and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the complaint filed by Ms. Demarest.
The ODC alleges that respondent's conduct in the Demarest matter violated Rules 1.3, 8.1(c), and 8.4(g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent answered the formal charges and generally denied any intentional misconduct.
Ms. Demarest did not appear to testify at the formal hearing on the merits. As a result, the hearing committee recommended that both counts relating to the Demarest matter be dismissed.
Counts XVI - XVIII (The Gullage Matter)
In May 1997, Sonja Tillery Gullage retained respondent to handle a domestic matter. Respondent received filing fees from Ms. Gullage, but he did not pay the fees to the court. In addition, respondent neglected the matter he was retained to handle and he failed to answer the complaint filed against him by Ms. Gullage, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena by the ODC.
The ODC alleges that respondent's conduct in the Gullage matter violated Rules 1.3, 1.15 (safekeeping property of clients or third persons), 8.1(c), and 8.4(g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent answered the formal charges and generally denied any intentional misconduct.
After consideration, the hearing committee concluded the ODC proved by clear and convincing evidence that respondent neglected Ms. Gullage's legal matter and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the complaint Ms. Gullage filed. However, the committee found there was conflicting testimony regarding the sums paid by Ms. Gullage to respondent, and whether those funds were intended for court costs or for attorney's fees. Accordingly, the committee concluded the ODC did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated Rule 1.15 by failing to pay to the court sums intended for filing fees or other costs.
99-DB-030
Count I (The Hymel Matter)
Troy Hymel paid respondent $650 to handle two criminal matters. Respondent neglected the matters and failed to communicate with his client. In addition, respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the complaint filed by Mr. Hymel.
The ODC alleg
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.
|
|