 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Bradley11/29/2005
10/03), 838 So. 2d 715.
Based on the deemed admitted facts and other evidence in the record, we find respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as determined by the disciplinary board in Counts II through XIII. Respondent neglected legal matters then abandoned his law practice in Louisiana without protecting his clients' interests. Prior to relocating, respondent intentionally used his client trust account as his personal and business account, resulting in numerous instances of commingling and conversion. The trust account records reveal that he commingled at least $7,164.26 of his own funds with trust account funds. The records also indicate he converted at least $31,561.02 and possibly converted an additional $97,030. The records further indicate that he deposited several client settlement checks into the account but did not pay most client and third-party funds from the account. Respondent also knowingly disobeyed court orders on numerous occasions, resulting in sanctions and his suspension from practice in federal court in both the Middle and Eastern Districts of Louisiana. Finally, unlike the board, we find a violation of Rule 1.8 with respect to Count I. The record reveals that Mr. Hopper believed he and respondent had an ongoing attorney-client relationship at the time he provided collateral for respondent's business loan. As such, respondent engaged in a conflict of interest by entering into a business relationship with his client.
Having found professional misconduct, 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 knowingly and intentionally violated duties owed to his clients, the public, the legal system, and as a professional, causing serious harm. Several aggravating factors are present, including dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, and substantial experience in the practice of law. The sole mitigating factor is partial restitution.
Under these circumstances, there appears to be little doubt that the proper sanction for respondent's misconduct is disbarrment. Thus, the sole remaining issue to be resolved is whether respondent's misconduct is so egregious that he should be permanently prohibited from seeking readmission to the practice of law.
Supreme Court Rule XIX, Appendix E, Guideline 1 indicates that permanent disbarrment is warranted when an attorney engages in " epeated or multiple instances of intentional conversion of client funds with substantial harm." The record clearly demonstrates respondent engaged in multiple instances of conversion, converting at least $31,000 of client funds to his own use.
In In re: Deshotels, 03-2060 (La. 12/12/03), 863 So. 2d 507, this court imposed permanent disbarrment on an attorney charged with conversion of $38,500 in client and third-party funds, coupled with numerous counts of other misconduct, including neglect of legal matters, failure to communicate with clients, disobedience of court orders, failure to pr
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|