Without Possibility Of Reinstatement

The Louisiana Supreme Court permanently disbarred two attorneys in unrelated matters.

In each, a dissent would not make disbarment necessarily a forever thing.

One matter involved a criminal conviction for an attempt not to fix a horse race, but rather an election for president of an organization representing horse owners and trainers

In March 2005, respondent was elected as president of the Louisiana Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association 1993, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “HBPA” or the “association”), a non-profit corporation recognized by law as the representative of horse owners and trainers in the State of Louisiana. In March 2008, respondent was reelected to a second term as HBPA president. Heserved in that capacity until November 2010, when he was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Louisiana on twenty-nine counts of conspiracy and fraud charges relating to the HBPA.

In August 2011, respondent pleaded guilty to one felony count of conspiracy to commit mail, wire, healthcare, and identification document fraud; the remaining counts of the indictment were dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement with the Government. In the factual basis accompanying the guilty plea, respondent admitted that he and others conspired to rig the outcome of the March 2008 HBPA elections. An object of the conspiracy was to reelect respondent as HBPA president and to elect his favored candidates as members of the association’s board of directors.

The other involved billing fraud

From 1978 to 2008, respondent was an associate, then a partner, in the New Orleans office of the law firm of Porteous, Hainkel, Johnson & Sarpy (“the firm”), where his practice was principally confined to the defense of insurance companies. Given the nature of his practice, respondent billed for his legal work on an hourly basis, and these bills were paid to the firm by the client. In addition, respondent’s major client, Farm Bureau Insurance Company (“Farm Bureau”), allowed him to seek reimbursement for mileage and for out-of-pocket expenses (such as tolls and parking) in connection with his travel on Farm Bureau’s legal matters. Upon incurring such expenses, respondent submitted an expense reimbursement request form to the firm’s accounting department; in turn, he received a check from the firm and the firm then recouped these amounts from Farm Bureau.

Sometime in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s, the firm became aware that respondent was submitting expense reimbursement request forms without attaching the necessary documentation to support the claim. Additionally, respondent was routinely tardy in submitting his reimbursement requests, often after the client’s file in question was closed, making it more difficult for the firm to recover the expenses from its client. As a result, respondent was confronted by firm management. Respondent excused his conduct as nothing more than “sloppy recordkeeping,” an explanation which the firm accepted at that time. Nevertheless, to resolve the concerns over his expense practices, the firm required and respondent agreed that in the future he would submit all of his expense reimbursement request forms to another partner for review, and that he would refrain from signing his own expense reimbursement checks. These procedures remained in place for the duration of respondent’s employment with the firm.

When further issues arose, the firm conducted appointed an audit committee.

The audit of a three-month period revealed “numerous irregularities” and led to a more extensive review

…the audit committee identified  94 requests for reimbursement of $23,212 in expenses for events that were noton respondent’s calendar, could not be documented in a file, had not taken place due to a settlement or continuance,occurred when respondent was out of theoffice, or had been covered by someone else in the firm. In none of these instances was there any corresponding charge tothe client for respondent’s time as a lawyer. The audit committee also discovered that respondent had continued to sign some of his own expense reimbursement checks, despite his agreement not to do so.

The attorney notified the Office of Disciplinary Counsel but minimized the misconduct.

The court rejected a series of evidentiary claims and imposed the ultimate of ultimate sanctions

In the case at bar, the sheer number of charges and the length of time over which the charges occurred lead to the inescapable conclusion that respondent entered into a knowing and calculated scheme to wrongfully deprive his client of funds. These facts reveal respondent’s clear disregard for the welfare of his client and for his duties as an attorney. As such, we find the facts convincingly demonstrate respondent lacks the moral fitness necessary to practice law in Louisiana.

Justice Weimer dissents and opines on the permanent aspect of the sanction

the instant misconduct, in my view, does not warrant determining in advance that the 61-year-old respondent should be forever prohibited from even the possibility of rehabilitating his character and fitness

 (Mike Frisch)