No Discipline For “Minor” Misconduct

The Louisiana Supreme Court declined  to entertain an appeal of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of an order dismissing a matter involving two instances of unauthorized practice while suspended for non-payment of bar dues.

The rationale of the Attorney Disciplinary Board 

Here, Respondent violated his duties owed to his clients and to the profession by entrusting his non-lawyer assistant to pay his annual dues/disciplinary assessment and to register his trust account but then failing to properly supervise her. However, the record clearly establishes that Respondent’s actions (or inactions) were purely negligent and did not result in client harm. Any resulting harm to the profession was minimal as Respondent quickly rectified the consequences of his non-lawyer assistant’s conduct. Furthermore, there are substantial mitigating factors supported by the record: 1) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive; 2) timely good faith effort to make restitution or rectify the consequences of misconduct; 3) full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board or cooperative attitude towards proceedings; 4) character or reputation; 5) delay in disciplinary proceedings; and 6) remorse.

Based upon the lack of actual harm, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, and the substantial mitigating factors, the Board declines to impose formal discipline in this case. In the past, the Court has declined to impose formal discipline in cases where there was a minor violation of the rules that did not cause any actual harm.

The court entered a brief order concluding that the board had reached the “correct result.”

Justice Crichton agreed

The facts in this case evidence a number of significant mitigating factors, including respondent’s good character and reputation, that respondent acted promptly to rectify the violations, and lack of actual harm. Additionally, the disciplinary board found no aggravating factors at all, and noted that respondent made full disclosures to the disciplinary board and cooperated in the proceedings.

While this Court is not bound by the findings of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, we traditionally extend deference to the committee’s findings.

Justices Weimer and Hughes dissented. (Mike Frisch)