“Michael”

The Louisiana Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney who falsely claimed that her client had given her $24,500 in cash to pay his court-ordered restitution

Respondent went to the Winn Parish Sheriff’s Department and confessed that Mr. Stanford had given her $24,500 in cash to pay his restitution, but that she had used the money “inappropriately” and “could not get it back.” Respondent claimed that Mr. Stanford had no knowledge of what she had done and stated that she took full responsibility for her actions. At the conclusion of the interview, respondent was arrested and booked on a charge of felony theft.

Law enforcement officers subsequently obtained jail phone recordings of conversations between respondent, Mr. Stanford,  and his wife, Audrea Denise Stanford, which took place from September 1, 2015 to September 4, 2015. After listening to the recordings, the officers concluded there was a conspiracy between the three individuals calculated to secure Mr. Stanford’s release from jail on the probation hold. The telephone calls revealed to the authorities that respondent had never actually received $24,500 from Mr. Stanford, but that respondent had agreed to turn herself in and “confess” that she received $24,500 and converted the funds without the knowledge or authorization of Mr. Stanford, all in order to show that Mr. Stanford had complied with his sentence and therefore should not be held in jail on a probation hold. Based on the recordings, respondent was arrested on October 6, 2015 and charged with conspiracy to commit felony theft, corrupt influencing, filing or maintaining false public records, and attempted felony theft. These charges were ultimately dismissed in connection with respondent’s guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace.

She self-reported the conviction and explained  at the bar hearing

In her testimony, respondent explained that she had nothing but a “sisterly affection” for Mr. Stanford, whom she often referred to as “Brother.” Respondent trusted “Brother” completely. However, there was another “individual” that respondent believed to be Mr. Stanford’s “friend,” but who in reality was Mr. Stanford himself, named “Michael,” whom respondent had fallen in love with. Respondent could not explain what went on in her mind to make her believe this, acknowledging that “there’s no rational explanation.”

Respondent admitted she gave a receipt to Mr. Stanford for the restitution funds even though she had not actually received any money from him. She admitted this was “foolish” but stated that she did so because she trusted Mr. Stanford and because he assured her that an attorney from Texas was on her way to Louisiana with the funds. Ultimately, this did not happen, and the State moved to revoke Mr. Stanford’s probation.

Thereafter, on the evening of September 3, 2015, “Michael” asked respondent to go to the police and tell them that she had received the money and spent it. Respondent decided to agree to this request because she thought of the Scriptural passage that speaks of having no greater love than to lay down one’s life for his friends. Respondent acknowledged that she lied and that she was wrong to do so, but she denied that she acted deviously or with an intent to defraud Judge Derr. She also testified that she believed at the time that Mr. Stanford would tender the remainder of his restitution and that he would come forward and exonerate her.

The Attorney Disciplinary Board

Respondent was in a romantic relationship with an individual she believed to be named “Michael” (actually Mr. Stanford disguising his voice over the telephone), and the apparent goal of the scheme between respondent, Mr. Stanford, and “Michael” was to secure Mr. Stanford’s release from incarceration without having Mr. Stanford actually pay the restitution mandated by his probation terms. Respondent’s selfish motive stemmed from her romantic interest in “Michael” and her desire to cooperate with him in effecting the scheme. Further, although respondent gave testimony of her remorsefulness before the hearing committee, the board was not convinced by her argument that she was remorseful for lying to Chief Investigator Tucker when she represented to him that the receipt given to Officer Cowart by Mr. Stanford was legitimate and that she had taken the funds, used them, and no longer had possession of them. Therefore, this mitigating factor was not accepted by the board.

The court

Respondent’s dishonest and fraudulent actions unquestionably fall well below the high ethical standards expected of Louisiana lawyers and warrant disbarment. However, in light of the unique facts of this case, including respondent’s emotional state during the time period in question, as well as the lack of any actual harm, we will not permanently prohibit her from seeking readmission to the bar.

(Mike Frisch)