 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Yaeger3/18/2005
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Paul J. Yaeger, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently on interim suspension.
UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In September 1997, pursuant to a petition for consent discipline, this court suspended respondent from the practice of law for eighteen months, with all but three months deferred, followed by a two-year period of supervised probation with conditions. In re: Yaeger, 97-1610, 97-1611, 97-1612 (La. 9/5/97), 698 So. 2d 951. In February 1999, the ODC filed a rule to revoke respondent's probation after receiving complaints that he was practicing law during the period of his suspension. In March 1999, the rule to revoke probation was stayed when this court transferred respondent to disability inactive status, based on his allegation that he was severely depressed and unable to defend himself in the pending proceedings. At respondent's request, he was reinstated to active status on October 4, 2000, thereby permitting the disciplinary proceedings to resume. In re: Yaeger, 00-2519 (La. 10/4/00), 769 So. 2d 1179.
Meanwhile, in April 1999, respondent was arrested and charged with felony theft in Jefferson Parish. He pleaded guilty to three counts of felony theft in February 2000. Following the guilty plea, and respondent's reinstatement to active status, he was placed on interim suspension based on his conviction of a serious crime. In re: Yaeger, 00-3523 (La. 1/26/01), 777 So. 2d 1220.
In March 2001, prior to the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC filed a joint petition for consent discipline. The parties proposed that respondent be disbarred for his criminal conviction as well as the misconduct at issue in some fifteen disciplinary investigations that were then pending. On August 1, 2001, the disciplinary board recommended that the petition for consent discipline be accepted and that respondent be disbarred. On April 10, 2002, this court rejected the proposed consent discipline and remanded the matter for the institution of formal charges, with the instruction that on remand "the hearing committee and disciplinary board may consider recommendation of the sanction of permanent disbarrment, if appropriate, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, ยงยง 10(a) and 24, as amended effective August 1, 2001." In re: Yaeger, 01-2259 (La. 4/10/02), 819 So. 2d 278.
On August 14, 2002, the ODC filed fifteen counts of formal charges against respondent. Respondent answered the formal charges and essentially admitted his misconduct, but requested a hearing in mitigation. At the hearing, the parties entered into a joint stipulation in which respondent admitted to the misconduct as alleged in the formal charges. These stipulations may be summarized as follows:
Count I
In September 1997, respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while he was suspended from practice. Respondent was notified of the complaint, but failed to respond, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena to compel his response.
The ODC and respondent stipulated that respondent's conduct violated Rules 5.5(a) (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), and 8.4(g) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Count II
Respondent settled a personal injury case for a client and withheld funds to pay the client's medical provider, but nevertheless failed to pay the provider promptly. Respondent finally
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|