A Great Story: Remorse, Rehabilitation And Redemption
An attorney who consented to disbarment effective in 2010 should be readmitted to practice law, according to the recommendation of a Louisiana Hearing Committee.
The one-page disbarment order
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent submitted false billing for work not performed in connection with the representation of his clients. Following the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which respondent acknowledges that his conduct constitutes a violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Louisiana Record reported on the misconduct.
The committee found that he had not engaged in unauthorized practice and was remorseful for his misconduct.
Most significantly he has complied with treatment offered by the Bar’s assistance program, leading to this remarkable observation
Compared to efficacies of twelve-step programs generally, treatment centers and even more intensive recovery programs, 22 JLAP’s ninety-five (95%) percent efficacy is substantially higher than what is generally available anywhere. Indeed, JLAP’s exceedingly low five-year relapse rate, which is five (5%) percent, is beyond comparison. Compliance with a JLAP Agreement seems to be the “gold standard,” and a requisite in which the Court places great confidence and reliance.
Recommendation
Mr. Sepcich presented compelling evidence that meets or exceeds the clear and convincing standard of proof for every requisite of Supreme Court Rule XIX, Section 24(E). The hearing committee finds that Mr. Sepcich and each witness that he presented were credible and truthful. Mr. Sepcich’s testimony is persuasive that he not only meets the requisites for readmission, but further that to readmit Mr. Sepcich would provide a very positive and ongoing service to the current and future members of the Bar. More importantly, it would reflect favorably on our legal system and serve as a meaningful example to the legal community and public regarding the very high standard of proof required to for a disbarred lawyer to achieve readmission, and the nature and scope of rehabilitation that merited readmission in this case.
The harsh but appropriate discipline imposed on Mr. Sepcich should serve to dispel any misconception that lawyers from “large” or prominent law firms are somehow immune from discipline; that such persons are treated with undue and inequal favoritism; or that potential misconduct involving “well connected” lawyers is ignored or buried by their firms or the disciplinary system. Mr. Sepcich was a managing partner of one of Louisiana’s preeminent law firms. His firm handled Mr. Sepcich’s professional conduct violations in what appears to be perfect compliance with and respect for the Code of Professional Conduct. For his professional misconduct, Mr. Sepcich received the most severe of sanctions, from which a return to the practice of law is exceedingly difficult, and a feat accomplished by only a rare few.
The content of Mr. Sepcich’s character was evident to the many outstanding practitioners and fine individuals who offered testimony and written statements on his behalf. It was vividly clear to the hearing committee. Mr. Sepcich is an example of both the best and worst experiences in our disciplinary and legal systems. While it is cliché that “experience is the best teacher,” it is the bad experience a seasoned veteran has to offer that provides the best opportunity for others to learn and avoid painful, potentially fatal errors. Put another way, the story of a lawyer’s perfect compliance with rules and laws is an enjoyable and exemplary tale. But the story of failure and severe consequences, followed by remorse, rehabilitation and redemption is a great story. Mr. Sepcich has a great story to tell. His story is one that could be invaluable to current and future members of our Bar.
(Mike Frisch)