 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Henderson6/6/2002
inary board, we have held the manifest error standard is applicable to the committee's factual findings. See In re: Caulfield, 96-1401 (La. 11/25/96), 683 So. 2d 714; In re: Pardue, 93-2865 (La. 3/11/94), 633 So. 2d 150.
Based on our review, we conclude the record supports the committee's factual findings. The record clearly demonstrates that respondent neglected Ms. Mills' legal matter, allowing it to prescribe. Respondent then created a conflict of interest by attempting to settle his liability for legal malpractice without advising his client to seek the advice of independent counsel prior to entering into the settlement. In the Brown and LSU matters, respondent issued checks which were subsequently dishonored for insufficient funds, and did not make good on the checks in a prompt manner. In the Spivey matter, respondent failed to pay third party medical providers from settlement funds as he promised to do, and commingled and converted these funds to his own use. Finally, respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the Brown and Spivey matters.
Having found violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, we now turn to a determination of an appropriate sanction for this misconduct. The purpose of disciplinary proceedings is not primarily to punish the lawyer, but rather to maintain the appropriate standards of professional conduct, to preserve the integrity of the legal profession and to deter other lawyers from engaging in violations of the standards of the profession. In re: Vaughan, 00-1892 (La. 10/27/00), 772 So. 2d 87; In re: Lain, 00-0148 (La. 5/26/00), 760 So. 2d 1152; Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Levy, 400 So. 2d 1355 (La. 1981). 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. In re: Redd, 95-1472 (La. 9/15/95), 660 So. 2d 839; Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Whittington, 459 So. 2d 520 (La. 1984).
Respondent's misconduct is serious in nature and has caused actual harm. He deprived Ms. Mills of the opportunity to determine whether his offer to settle his legal malpractice liability was adequate under the facts. By failing to disburse funds to the third party medical providers, he has deprived these providers of their funds for an extended period of time. Respondent's issuance of dishonored checks in the Brown and LSU matters required Dr. Brown and LSU to undergo the additional time and expense to obtain their money. His failure to cooperate with the ODC resulted in the delay of these proceedings, and required the ODC to expend additional resources and time. Given the actual harm visited by respondent on both clients and third parties in this case, the baseline sanction is unquestionably disbarrment. See, e.g., In re: Gros, 97-1295 (La. 9/24/97), 699 So. 2d 384.
As aggravating factors, we recognize respondent's prior discipline in Henderson I, his substantial experience in the practice of law, a pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses. We are unable to find any mitigating factors from the record. Under these facts, we see no basis to deviate from the baseline sanction of disbarrment. Accordingly, we will disbar respondent from the practice of law in the State of Louisiana.
DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is the decision of this court that the recommendation of the disciplinary board be accepted. Accordingly, it is ordered that the name of Edward L. Henderson be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that his license to practice law in the State of Louisiana be revoked. Respo
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.
|
|