A Song For Charm School: I Can’t Help Myself
The Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board found that an attorney’s conduct in litigation and in the wake of an interim suspension merited an upward departure from the presumptive sanction of disbarment.
Among the communications at issue
On March 30, 2009, Respondent confirmed his receipt by mail of the Court’s order of Interim Suspension by replying to the Court’s administrator, and copying the Disciplinary Counsel Ad Hoc, that the Court was a “gutless” “bunch of pigs” and referred to Chief Justice Kimball with a sexual and offensive nickname.
On April 8, 2009, at 1:31 p.m., he sent another email to Disciplinary Counsel Ad Hoc denying the use of racially disparaging terms, yet including many such terms along with other offensive terms, in this email. Later the same day, at 4:34 p.m., he notified Disciplinary Counsel Ad Hoc that he was a “pimp”, a “puppet”, an “Uncle Tom”, and an “OREO.”
On April 14, 2009, at 6:34 p.m., Respondent sent an email to Disciplinary Counsel Ad Hoc with only a subject line using the same objectionable terms. Later, at 8:16 p.m., Respondent notified Disciplinary Counsel Ad Hoc by email that “I Just Can’t Help Myself” and then launched into a string of racially offensive and obscene terms.
It began with Hurricane Katrina litigation in federal court
Respondent made plain his intention to disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal when, in response to the November 7, 2008, En Banc Order of the federal court suspending him from practice, he filed his motion styled, “Ashton O’Dwyer’s 28 U.S.C. § 1746 Declaration of His Intentionally Contemptuous Non-Compliance with the Court’s Order of 11/07/08 Which is Directed to the Court En Banc.” 70 In the filing Respondent declared that “he has no intention of ever complying” with the order’s requirements that he pay all outstanding monetary sanctions against him and that he obtain stress and anger management treatment. He flippantly asserted that he would “agree to submit to . . . counseling/treatment, only upon the condition that each Member of the Court first complete ‘charm school.’” Respondent concluded by stating “the Court en banc is invited to disbar Respondent, forever.”
Despite the express terms of the November 7, 2008, En Banc Order which placed him on suspension, Respondent continued mailing, faxing and hand delivering documents to the Court and to individual judges without first paying his outstanding monetary sanctions, or obtaining permission from a member of the Court, in violation of the terms of the orders.71 On July 27, 2009, in open contempt of the March 4, 2009, Order of Disbarment, Respondent caused to be hand delivered to Judge Lemelle a handwritten note containing an outrageous racial slur directed at the judge, resulting in the Court’s issuance of an order barring Respondent from entering the federal courthouse.
Sanction
Clearly, and as previously discussed, the record supports the Hearing Committee’s findings that Respondent violated numerous provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct. He engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation by his unrelenting misuse and abuse of the legal system, filing frivolous pleadings containing unsupported and inflammatory allegations, misrepresenting the conduct of opposing counsel, using offensive, racist and vulgar language, and impugning the integrity of the judiciary, as well as the disciplinary authorities. Respondent acted with deceit when he sought to mislead the federal court by using his cousin’s name as a ploy so that he could continue to file pleadings after he had been disbarred from practice in the Eastern District and after he had been placed on interim suspension by the Louisiana Supreme Court. He hurled threats of civil, criminal and disciplinary proceedings at judges, opposing counsel and disciplinary authorities. Furthermore, as the Committee found, though the Respondent was notified of his obligations under Section 26 of Rule XIX, relative to his duties to notify clients, co-counsel and opposing counsel of his status and contact information, he failed to do so in violation of Rule 8.5(a).
The Times Picayune had a story on the litigation and its aftermath.
Our earlier coverage is linked here. (Mike Frisch)