 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Collinsworth9/21/2001
ple offenses, vulnerability of the victims, substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted in 1977) and illegal conduct. Like the committee, it found no mitigating factors. Accordingly, the board recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law.
Neither respondent nor the ODC objected to the disciplinary board's recommendation.
DISCUSSION
The record supports the finding that respondent knowingly and intentionally failed to communicate with his clients, neglected and failed to expedite his clients' legal matters and litigation, failed to account for or refund a substantial amount of misappropriated funds and failed to cooperate with the ODC. Therefore, the sole issue presented for our consideration is the appropriate sanction for respondent's misconduct.
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 conduct caused actual harm to his clients, to third parties and his former employer by depriving them of their funds for a substantial period of time. His actions demonstrate he has little, if any, concern for the welfare of clients and his colleagues. Likewise, his failure to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation against him displays an indifference to his professional obligation which has impaired the efficient operation of the disciplinary process. Numerous aggravating factors are present, including a prior discipline, a pattern of misconduct and failure to make (or even attempt to make) restitution to his victims.
Under these circumstances, we must conclude respondent lacks the fitness to practice law in the State of Louisiana. This court has disbarred attorneys for similar conduct. See In re: Callahan, 00-3357 (La. 3/23/01), 782 So. 2d 624; In re: Phipps, 98-0762 (La. 6/19/98), 713 So. 2d 1135; In re: Smith, 98-0619, 98-0620 (La. 5/8/98), 710 So. 2d 241; In re: Ferrand, 97-0811 (La. 6/20/97), 695 So. 2d 1332; In re: Welcker, 97-0825 (La. 6/3/97), 694 So. 2d 918; In re: Caver, 97-0823, 97-0824 (La. 5/1/97), 693 So. 2d 150; and In re: Parker, 96-2697, 96-2698 (La. 1/24/97), 687 So. 2d 96. Accordingly, we will accept the recommendation of the disciplinary board and disbar respondent from the practice of law.
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 John D. Collinsworth be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that his license to practice law in the State of Louisiana be revoked. Further, respondent is ordered to return all files and papers belonging to his clients and his former employer, as well as ordered to provide complete accountings and full restitution to his victims. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, ยง 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court's judgment until paid.
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|