Louisiana Treats Delay As Mitigation In Bar Discipline Matter

A six-month suspension with all but 30 days deferred has been ordered by the Louisiana Supreme Court for neglect and false statements.

Notably, the Court accorded substantial mitigation to delay by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel

In 2009, Goldie Mae Jack hired respondent to handle her personal injury case on a contingency fee basis. During the course of the representation, respondent failed to respond to opposing counsel’s repeated written requests for discovery responses. He also failed to communicate with Ms. Jack regarding the status of her case.

On June 30, 2010, Ms. Jack gave a deposition in the case. Thereafter, respondent attempted to negotiate a settlement on Ms. Jack’s behalf, initially demanding $290,475.27 on September 3, 2010. Negotiations continued until September 2012, when the adjuster for the defendant insurer sent respondent a final settlement offer in the amount of $3,000. Respondent did not pursue the case further.

On January 30, 2014, the defendant filed an ex parte motion to dismiss the case due to abandonment. The judge signed an order dismissing the case on February 4, 2014, but respondent failed to inform Ms. Jack. Because she could not contact respondent, Ms. Jack learned of the dismissal when she checked the court record of her case.

Ms. Jack filed a bar complaint in April 2014.

The board 

the board noted that the committee found respondent knowingly made false statements in his response to Ms. Jack’s disciplinary complaint and continued to pursue significant settlement demands despite believing Ms. Jack’s case was fraudulent. In light of these findings, the board determined respondent engaged in misrepresentation, which is a violation of Rule 8.4(c).

The court laments

In determining a sanction in this matter, we must give consideration to the unexplained delay in the prosecution of these charges. The misconduct at issue occurred between 2009-2014, and the disciplinary complaint was filed in 2014. However, the ODC did not institute formal charges until 2019. We conclude this delay in the institution of disciplinary proceedings must be considered as an additional and substantial mitigating factor.

Justice Crichton concurred

I agree with the majority’s imposition of a six month suspension with all but thirty days deferred. However, as Justice Crain noted in his dissent, the Office of Disciplinary’s delay was unreasonable. As a result, but for that delay, I would be inclined to impose a harsher sanction that would include a substantially longer period of actual suspension. Not only does the record establish that respondent neglected a legal matter, causing his client’s lawsuit to be dismissed due to abandonment, respondent knowingly made a false statement of fact and submitted false evidence during his disciplinary proceedings. Such a disregard for the sanctity of the disciplinary process, which is designed to protect the public and preserve the integrity of the profession, is shocking.

Justice Crain dissented

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel first acted on this complaint in 2014. They now ask us to impose discipline in 2022, eight years after their investigation commenced. The charge was not complex. The persons involved cooperated. Thus, I find this delay on the part of the ODC unreasonable and fully mitigating. Suspending someone for even 30 days for these events that happened nearly a decade ago is unduly harsh. I dissent and would impose a six month suspension fully deferred.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has tolerated delays far, far longer than that found here without granting mitigation. (Mike Frisch)