Hair Unapparent

Disbarment should be imposed of an attorney who tried to help his client beat a drug test, according to a recommendation of the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board approving findings below.

The Committee finds that upon notice that Respondent’s client’s ex-husband was filing an emergency custody petition based on his client’s abuse of illicit drugs (reported by his client’s mother to the ex-husband), the Respondent and his client traveled to a health store seeking a “hair stripper” or detox shampoo. The Respondent purchased the product, Zydot UltraClean hair treatment, and then traveled to his client’s home where he remained until sometime after 6:40 pm. The following day, counsel for the ex-husband presented the emergency custody petition, and the presiding judge conducted a pre-trial conference in chambers. In the pre-trial conference, Respondent denied that his client was using drugs. The court ordered Respondent’s client to submit to cuticle, urine and hair follicle drug screens. The hair follicle screen was negative, but the urine screen was positive for marijuana, and the cuticle screen was presumed positive for marijuana, amphetamines and methamphetamines. Based on these circumstances, the Committee finds that Respondent purchased the detox shampoo for use by his client in order to avoid a positive result on a hair follicle drug screen that Respondent anticipated would be ordered by the district court after the emergency petition for custody was presented to the court.

The Committee finds that Respondent violated rule 3.3(a) because he made a false statement to the district court. His purchase of a masking agent for his client’s hair when an order for a drug test the next day was probable indicates that he possessed knowledge or a strong suspicion that his client had been abusing drugs. His statements to the district court during the pre-trial conference “adamantly denying” that his client used drugs were false. The Committee also finds that Respondent violated Rule 3.4(b) by falsifying evidence because he purchased the detox shampoo for his client to use before a probable court ordered drug screen.

He was found to have engaged in more prosaic misconduct in a number of other matters, including a criminal conviction

[he] entered pleas of guilty to counts of Theft of Utility Services and Theft. He was fined $500; sentenced to serve 180 days in jail on each count, said sentences to be suspended; and placed on one year of supervised probation.

(Mike Frisch)