 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Lockhart9/21/2001
iolated a duty owed to the public and the profession. The board found that by its very nature, respondent's conduct caused serious injury by tainting the public's perception of the legal system.
The board concurred in the mitigating factors cited in respondent's petition for consent discipline, and agreed that no aggravating factors are present in this matter. Relying on the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions and jurisprudence from this court, the board concluded that the proposed sanction is appropriate to address respondent's misconduct. Accordingly, the board recommended the consent discipline be accepted.
Neither respondent nor the ODC objected to the disciplinary board's recommendation.
DISCUSSION
Although this matter arises from a petition for consent discipline, Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 20(B) provides that the extent of discipline to be imposed is subject to review. In determining an appropriate sanction, we are mindful that disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession, and deter future misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Reis, 513 So. 2d 1173 (La. 1987). 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. Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Whittington, 459 So. 2d 520 (La. 1984).
Respondent's admission that he paid runners to solicit personal injury clients constitutes serious ethical and criminal misconduct. We have not hesitated to disbar attorneys for engaging in such conduct. See, e.g., In re: Cuccia, 99-3041 (La. 12/17/99), 752 So. 2d 796, and In re: Castro, 99-0707 (La. 6/18/99), 737 So. 2d 701.
However, there are several mitigating factors present in the instant case. Respondent has no prior disciplinary record, and has expressed remorse for his actions. He has willingly cooperated with disciplinary and law enforcement authorities in their investigations of the runner-based solicitation industry. Moreover, the record reveals that respondent was a minor participant in the runner scheme, and that his participation ended after a relatively short period of time. Under similar circumstances, we have deviated from the baseline sanction of disbarrment. See In re: Bernstein, 98-3207 (La. 1/29/99), 725 So. 2d 483 ( three-year suspension, with one year deferred, imposed upon an attorney who paid runners to solicit cases, but cooperated in a subsequent disciplinary and criminal investigations).
In light of these factors, we will accept the petition for consent discipline and order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, retroactive to his September 13, 2000 interim suspension.
DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the disciplinary board, and considering the record filed herein, it is ordered that Tommie L. Lockhart, II be suspended from the practice of law for three years, retroactive to his September 13, 2000 interim suspension. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court's judgment until paid.
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.
|
|