 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Henderson6/6/2002
erate with the ODC), as well as Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 9(c) (knowing failure to respond to a lawful demand from a disciplinary authority).
Count IV
In July 1994, Beatrice Spivey retained respondent to represent her in a personal injury matter. Less than one year later, respondent settled the case on behalf of Ms. Spivey for $8,200. On March 27, 1995, respondent provided an accounting and disbursed $3,224.02 to her. Respondent retained $615.97 of the settlement to pay third-party medical providers who rendered services to Ms. Spivey. However, respondent failed to pay the third party medical providers, and instead commingled and converted the funds to his own use.
During its investigation of this matter, the ODC issued a subpoena to respondent, compelling his appearance for deposition and requesting production of certain financial records. While respondent appeared for the deposition, he failed to produce the requested documents. At the deposition, respondent agreed to produce the financial documents, but subsequently failed to do so.
The ODC alleges respondent's actions violated Rule 3.4(c) (failure to comply with tribunal orders), Rule 8.1(b) (failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority), Rule 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), Rule 8.4(a) (violating or attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct), 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and Rule 8.4(g) (failure to cooperate with the ODC), as well as Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 9(c) (knowing failure to respond to a lawful demand from a disciplinary authority).
Count V
On December 2, 1999, respondent registered for a continuing legal education program sponsored by the Center of Continuing Professional Development at Louisiana State University ("LSU") Law Center. At that time, respondent tendered payment with a check in the amount of $335 drawn on his attorney at law account. Subsequently, respondent's bank dishonored the check due to insufficient funds. Between January and April 2000, Glynn P. Pellegrin, Director of the Center of Continuing Professional Development at LSU Law Center, made numerous formal requests for payment, but to no avail.
On May 3, 2000, Mr. Pellegrin filed a complaint with the ODC. On August 21, 2000, respondent, through counsel, provided restitution to the LSU Law Center.
The ODC alleges respondent's actions violate Rule 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act adversely reflecting on a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer).
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Formal Charges
After investigation, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent. Respondent filed an answer to the formal charges. Accordingly, the matter was set for a formal hearing before the committee.
Hearing Committee Recommendation
As to the Mills matter, the hearing committee made a finding of fact that respondent failed to file suit timely. Based on this finding, it concluded that respondent failed to provide competent representation or act with diligence and promptness in representing Ms. Mills. However, the committee found no clear and convincing evidence that respondent concealed the late filing of the suit from Ms. Mills. In support, the committee observed that Ms. Mills had testified at the hearing on the exception of prescription. Finally, the committee determined that respondent improperly settled his malpractice liability and failed to advise Ms. Mills to seek independent counsel.
In the Brown matter, the committee determined the ODC proved by clear and
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|