Defaults And Bar Discipline

The consequences of ignoring bar discipline charges were emphasized by the Louisiana Supreme Court in a recent disbarment 

The record in this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent failed to perform any services for a client, misled a client about the status of her case, solicited and purchased prescription medication from a client, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in an investigation. This misconduct amounts to a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges and modified by the disciplinary board.

As to sanction

Like the attorney in Mecca, respondent’s conduct includes both the soliciting and purchasing of prescription medication from a client. However, unlike the attorney in Mecca, respondent has taken no responsibility for her actions and there is no indication that she has ever sought treatment for her drug use. Like the attorney in Aucoin, respondent failed to perform legal services for her client, which caused injury to her client, and failed to refund unearned fees. Considering the totality of her misconduct, along with her failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation, we agree that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this case.

Accordingly, we will adopt the disciplinary board’s recommendation and impose disbarment.

The medication

Also, on two occasions, respondent requested prescription drugs from the client. On the first, respondent telephoned the client and requested to purchase Xanax. Hours later, she appeared at the client’s home with a pauper application and affidavit. Respondent purchased the Xanax and asked the client to sign the application and affidavit, although the $3,000 retainer had already been paid. Respondent never filed the completed application and affidavit with the court.

Justice Crichton concurs

This Court finds itself again faced with outrageous violations of our Rules of Professional Conduct by an unresponsive, uncooperative, and recalcitrant lawyer. Certainly, the violations alone warrant significant discipline, but the indifference towards one’s license to practice law is most concerning. Unfortunately, this Court has seen recent cases of the same sort.

He cites several recent dissents in non-cooperation matters where a lesser sanction was imposed

In this case, Ms. Hingel failed to respond to the Office of Disciplinary Board complaint, failed to honor a subpoena, and did not make any appearance before the Hearing Committee. She also did not file any objection to either the reports of the Hearing Committee or the Disciplinary Board, and finally, she declined to even make an eleventh hour plea to this Court. As serious as her violations are – including the bizarre efforts to illegally purchase drugs from her client – by not producing mitigation evidence, we are unquestionably compelled to order disbarment.

There are a wide variety of responses among the states to an attorney who fails to cooperate – a duty imposed by Rule 8.1.

Perhaps the harshest (read most public protective) jurisdiction is New York, where an attorney who fails to respond to a bar complaint is promptly suspended. If no response is received in six months, disbarment is imposed regardless of the severity of the deemed-admitted allegations.  (Mike Frisch)