Too Close To The Situation

An attorney’s representation of a divorce client drew a six-month actual suspension from the Louisiana Supreme Court where the client was allegedly having an affair with Respondent’s secretary and “best friend” 

On multiple occasions, both while respondent represented Mr. Trahan in the divorce proceeding, as well as after that representation was terminated by Mr. Trahan, respondent and Mrs. Trahan discussed a rumor that Mr. Trahan was having an affair with respondent’s long-time secretary, Nedra Porche. Respondent also revealed to Mrs. Trahan other confidential information relating to his representation of Mr. Trahan in the divorce proceeding, and he provided legal advice to Mrs. Trahan regarding actions that she could take in the divorce proceeding. Mr. Trahan did not give informed consent for respondent to discuss these matters with Mrs. Trahan. In May 2017, Mr. Trahan terminated respondent’s representation. Mr. Trahan then retained new counsel and obtained a divorce on June 23, 2017.

The former client filed the bar complaint; Respondent acknowledged the discussion with the wife

the ODC took respondent’s sworn statement, during which he acknowledged that he and Mrs. Trahan had discussed Mr. Trahan’s alleged affair on “five or so” occasions.

More than six months later, on April 19, 2018, respondent filed into the divorce proceeding a motion and order to remove his name as Mr. Trahan’s counsel of record.

Motion granted, followed by bar charges

In September 2019, less than three months after the hearing but before the committee issued its report, respondent filed a “Petition for Defamation by Libel and Slander” against Mr. Trahan and Ms. Porche. The defamation petition was based, at least in part, on Mr. Trahan’s and Ms. Porche’s communications to the ODC and their testimony at the hearing.

Evidence

Respondent testified that he has known Glynn and Pamela Trahan for twenty years and that he helped them with legal matters over the years.  Respondent also testified that he agreed to facilitate the Trahans’ divorce paperwork at the request of Ms. Porche, whom he considered to be his best friend…

Respondent also asserted that the alleged affair between Mr. Trahan and Ms. Porche was common knowledge. Thus, he claimed he did not divulge any confidential information to Mrs. Trahan, even though he acknowledged that he never asked Mr. Trahan for permission to discuss the alleged affair with Mrs. Trahan. Respondent indicated he told both Ms. Porche and Mr. Trahan that he would do the work only if the divorce was uncontested and based on living separate and apart, that he would not take sides in the divorce, and that he would discuss the divorce with Mrs. Trahan. Respondent claimed Mr. Trahan agreed that he could talk to Mrs. Trahan about the divorce.

Mr. Trehan and Ms. Porche both testified and denied the affair.

The court

The record in this matter supports a finding that respondent engaged in a conflict of interest by providing legal advice to both his client and his client’s estranged wife in connection with their divorce and by disclosing confidential information to his client’s estranged wife. Respondent then filed a defamation petition against his client and another witness based on the information they provided to the ODC regarding his conflict of interest.

Sanction

we find the board’s [year and a day] recommended sanction is overly harsh. Accordingly, we will suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year, with six months deferred.

Justice Hughes would impose a lesser sanction.

Our earlier coverage is linked here.(Mike Frisch)