Enough

The Louisiana Supreme Court has determined that no additional discipline should be imposed reciprocally based on sanctions imposed by a federal bankruptcy court

The record indicates that respondent has served the ninety-day suspension imposed by the Bankruptcy Court as well as a lengthy additional period of suspension. In addition, he has paid a substantial fine, disgorged all fees and expenses he collected in the eleven cases at issue, and implemented remedial measures designed to ensure compliance with the credit counseling requirements of the Bankruptcy Code. Finally, respondent has offered credible assurances that he will not engage in similar misconduct in the future. Considering these circumstances, the Western District determined that no additional discipline was necessary.

We agree and likewise find the imposition of additional discipline is not warranted. See, e.g., In re: Hartley, 03-2828 (La. 4/2/04), 869 So. 2d 799 (holding that not every violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct warrants the imposition of formal discipline). Accordingly, while we caution respondent to avoid similar professional lapses in the future, we decline to impose any additional discipline based on the unique facts presented in this matter.

The misconduct

Following a trial on the merits, United States Bankruptcy Judge Robert Summerhays found that respondent’s employees engaged in a pervasive scheme to circumvent the credit counseling requirements of the Bankruptcy Code by filing false Verifications using respondent’s electronic signature. Judge Summerhays also determined that respondent had: (1) breached his professional duties of oversight of his paralegals; (2) failed to ensure the veracity of the pleadings filed under his electronic signature in the eleven cases at issue; and (3) acted in bad faith in failing to exercise his professional obligations to oversee his staff and ensure that the documents filed under his signature were true and accurate. Judge Summerhays found that respondent’s conduct in failing to oversee his staff resulted not only in the filing of false pleadings in the eleven cases, but also in the filing of cases for debtors who were not eligible to file for relief under Chapter 13. Judge Summerhays concluded that respondent’s conduct was “atypical” and “extraordinary” and displayed “dishonesty of belief, purpose or motive.”

A dissent from Justice Weimer

Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21(D), which addresses reciprocal discipline, provides in part: “this court shall impose the identical discipline[.]” Rarely has this court departed from this mandatory provision in the Rule. Although the Rule provides instances that allow departure from this mandatory provision, given the findings of United States Bankruptcy Judge Summerhays (as outlined in the majority opinion), I would impose reciprocal discipline.

(Mike Frisch)