 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Carter6/24/2005
o Supreme Court Rule XIX, we set forth guidelines illustrating the types of conduct which might warrant permanent disbarrment. While these guidelines are not intended to bind this court in its decision-making process, they present useful information concerning the types of conduct we might consider worthy of permanent disbarrment.
Guideline 1 suggests permanent disbarrment is appropriate when the attorney engages in "repeated or multiple instances of intentional conversion of client funds with substantial harm." Respondent's conduct, taken as a whole, clearly falls within the scope of this guideline. Respondent engaged in a pattern of fraud and theft over a period of several years and injured multiple clients. This demonstrates with perfect clarity that he lacks the fundamental moral fitness required of attorneys admitted to the bar of this state. We can conceive of no instance under which we would readmit respondent to the practice of law. Accordingly, he must be permanently disbarred.
DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that the name of Arthur L. Carter, also known as A. Lloyd Carter, Louisiana Bar Roll number 17508, be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that his license to practice law in the State of Louisiana be revoked. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(A), it is further ordered that respondent be permanently prohibited from being readmitted to the practice of law in this state. Respondent is ordered to provide a complete accounting and full restitution to Wanda Narcisse and her son, Henry Bennett. 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.
CALOGERO, Chief Justice, concurs in part and dissents in part.
While I agree respondent's conduct warrants discipline, I believe permanent disbarrment is too harsh for this already disbarred attorney. In re: Carter, 02-2066 (La. 10/14/02), 829 So.2d 1023 ("Carter I"). I would find that the misconduct which occurred during the time frame of the conduct forming the basis of Carter I is encompassed within the disbarrment sanction already imposed. See Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Chatelain, 573 So.2d 470 (La. 1991). As for the misconduct that occurred thereafter, I would simply impose an additional period of suspension.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|