 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Broussard9/30/2002
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
This matter arises from a petition for consent discipline submitted by respondent, Francis C. Broussard, following the filing of formal charges by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC").
UNDERLYING FACTS
This proceeding involves two separate counts of misconduct. The facts, as stipulated to by the parties, are as follows:
Balsamo Matter
Respondent represented Steve Balsamo in a workers' compensation matter. During the representation, Mr. Balsamo was hired by a construction company which was partially owned by respondent. Mr. Balsamo was injured again while working for respondent's company. Respondent represented him for a period of time in connection with this claim until he was terminated by Mr. Balsamo. At no time did respondent obtain a waiver of the conflict of interest from his client.
Edwards Matter
Sandra D. Edwards retained respondent to represent her in a personal injury claim and a workers' compensation matter. At some point, the personal injury claim was settled; however, respondent failed to disburse the settlement proceeds to Ms. Edwards for over a year. During the time respondent was holding these funds, the balance in his trust account fell below the amount of the client's share due to negligent bookkeeping. Respondent ultimately paid Ms. Edwards all funds due her from the settlement.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Formal Charges
After investigation, the ODC filed two counts of formal charges against respondent. The first count, relating to the Balsamo matter, alleged respondent violated Rule 1.7(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by representing a client where the representation conflicted with the lawyer's own interest without obtaining the consent of the client after consultation. The second count, relating to the Edwards matter, alleged that respondent violated Rule 1.15(a) and (b) by commingling and converting his client's funds.
Petition for Consent Discipline
Prior to a hearing on the formal charges, respondent filed a petition for consent discipline, in which he stipulated to the facts and admitted his conduct violated Rules 1.7(b) and 1.15 (a) and (b). As a sanction, respondent proposed that he receive a six-month suspension from the practice of law, fully deferred. Respondent further proposed that he be placed on supervised probation for a period of one year, subject to the conditions that he submit to a quarterly audit of his trust account by a CPA, attend six additional hours of continuing legal education in the area of law office practice and trust accounts and that he attend and complete the Louisiana State Bar Association's Ethics School.
The ODC concurred with the petition for consent discipline. In its concurrence, the ODC observed that respondent's rule violations resulted from negligence and were corrected by him once they were discovered.
Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board
Based on respondent's admission of misconduct, the board accepted that he violated the rules as charged and found the sole issue before it was whether the proposed sanction was appropriate. Citing this court's opinions in In re: Reed, 99-3435 (La. 1/14/00), 753 So. 2d 175, and In re: Sarama, 97-0452 (La. 6/13/97), 695 So. 2d 517, the board found that this court imposed fully deferred suspensions followed by probation for similar misconduct. As aggravating factors, it identified respondent's prior discipline and multiple offenses. In mitigation, the board found respondent paid restitution and demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedi
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.
|
|