Neither Doctor Or Lawyer

The Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommends permanent disbarment of a lawyer who also is a physician convicted of federal offense

The committee found that Global Pain Management (“GPM”), the pain clinic at which Respondent was employed, was a “pain pill mill,” which led to Respondent’s conviction in federal court for knowingly and willfully conspiring with others to dispense controlled substances.  It was also noted that Respondent’s misconduct resulted in the Louisiana State Medical Board (“Medical Board”) suspending his medical license for three years and permanently prohibiting him from practicing pain medicine.  The committee emphasized the Medical Board’s finding that Respondent failed “to satisfy prevailing and usually accepted standards of medical care, prescribing controlled substances without legitimate medical justification and egregious disregard of the letter and spirit of the Pain Rules.”

Sanction

Even if it is determined that Guideline 5 does not specifically apply, the permanent disbarment guidelines are illustrative and are not intended to bind the Court in its decisionmaking. Given the conduct under consideration, permanent disbarment is warranted. The Court has, on a prior occasion, permanently disbarred an attorney who was arrested for possession with the intent to distribute Schedule IV narcotics. See In re Richard, 2014-1684 (La. 10/3/14); 148 So.3d 923. After a traffic stop and subsequent search revealed the presence of approximately 200 alprazolam (Xanax) tablets in Mr. Richard’s vehicle, he was arrested and booked on a felony charge. Later, he was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor (possession of drug paraphernalia), however the Court found the record supported a finding that Mr. Richard had conspired and arranged to sell controlled dangerous substances to an undercover narcotics officer. It found permanent disbarment was appropriate even though the conduct did not definitively fit any of the specific permanent disbarment guidelines.  The Court found Mr. Richard’s criminal conduct involving an intent to distribute controlled substances demonstrated a clear lack of moral fitness, which continued to place the public at risk and tarnished the image of the legal profession. It is notable that Respondent has argued that he was convicted of a conspiracy to dispense controlled substances and that no direct and actual harm has been proved. Mr. Richard, too, was found to have engaged in a conspiracy to sell controlled substances to an undercover officer. Though no direct and individual harm was proved, the Court found it appropriate to permanently disbar Mr. Richard.

(Mike Frisch)