 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Lockhart9/21/2001
This matter arises from a petition for consent discipline filed by respondent, Tommie L. Lockhart, II, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but who is currently on interim suspension.
UNDERLYING FACTS
Respondent entered the practice of law in 1996. After several months as a solo practitioner, respondent encountered severe economic problems due to a lack of clients and income. At that time, he met a medical provider who had an active practice involving personal injury cases. The medical provider arranged to introduce respondent to two "investigators" who would refer cases to him. The "investigators" were in fact runners -- non-lawyers who solicited personal injury clients for lawyers in exchange for payment.
Respondent met with the "investigators" and began to receive client referrals from them. According to respondent, he was unaware the "investigators" expected to be paid for their "referral service," because they initially did not ask for any payment for the referrals. However, after several months, the "investigators" made it clear to respondent that payment for the referral service was expected. Respondent paid them for some of the referrals, but ended his relationship with them after a relatively short period of time.
Subsequently, federal law enforcement officials began an investigation into the practice of runner-based solicitation. Respondent contacted the law enforcement officials before he was formally charged with a crime, and began cooperating in the investigation. Respondent ultimately pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to one count of misprision of felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 4, based on his failure to report a crime (conspiracy to commit mail fraud by a medical provider) despite his knowledge of this crime. Following his guilty plea, respondent was placed on probation for a period of three years, fined $2,500 and ordered to perform one hundred hours of community service.
Thereafter, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") jointly moved to place respondent on interim suspension. This court granted the motion on September 13, 2000. In re: Lockhart, 00-2592 (La. 9/13/00), 767 So. 2d 38.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Formal Charges/Petition for Consent Discipline
Prior to the institution of formal charges by the ODC, respondent filed a petition for consent discipline. In his petition, he admitted that his federal conviction constituted a violation of Rule 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act reflecting adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In addition, respondent admitted that he had paid runners to solicit personal injury clients, in violation of Rule 7.2 (direct contact with prospective clients). For his misconduct, respondent proposed that he be suspended from the practice of law for three years, retroactive to the date of his interim suspension, followed by a two-year period of supervised probation. The petition identified several mitigating factors, including absence of a prior disciplinary record, remorse, and good faith efforts to rectify the consequences of the misconduct, as well as respondent's "material and substantial" cooperation in the disciplinary and law enforcement investigations of runner-based solicitation in the greater New Orleans area. The ODC filed a concurrence in the petition, praying that the petition be approved and the stipulated form of discipline be imposed.
Disciplinary Board Recommendation
In its report, the disciplinary board found that respondent knowingly and intentionally v
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.
|
|