Over A Million

A Louisiana Hearing Committee proposes a deferred six-month suspension for violations of the rules governing solicitation

In February 2022, ODC received copies of several unsolicited written communications you mailed out to prospective clients. The letters sought out potential clients that may have suffered damage from the hurricanes that have recently impacted the State of Louisiana. A review of the letters indicated that you failed to include the LSBA Registration Number on the letters and failed to disclose that another attorney may handle the case.

By letter dated April 7, 2022, you acknowledged that your firm spent $624,796 to mail approximately 1,119,207 unsolicited written communications to prospective clients. Each of these letters was mailed without the required LSBA filing number. You further contend that you intended to handle all matters that originated from the publication of the approximately 1,119,207 unsolicited written communications.

And

In April 2022, Staff Investigator Allen Grimmis searched the LSBA’s Lawyer Advertising Website. Mr. Grimmis learned that you submitted a billboard and bus advertisement to the LSBA for review/approval (LA-22-12926 & LA-22-12927). Based on his review of the website, the filings did not disclose, by city or town, a bona fide office location of the lawyers who would perform the services advertised.

By letter dated May 25, 2022, you acknowledged that both advertisements were displayed to the public without the required information.

Specifics

Respondent is the Louisiana managing partner at McClenney Moseley & Associates, a law firm with principal offices in Houston, Texas. Through his law firm, Respondent disseminated approximately 1,119,207 written communications advertising his firm’s legal services. These communications were unsolicited, sent specifically to Louisiana residents who may have suffered property damage from recent hurricanes.  Through prehearing memoranda and testimony at the hearing, Respondent acknowledged that his firm sent these letters without the requisite LSBA filing number and that he failed to disclose that an attorney other than himself would be responsible for handling any cases arising from these communications.

In addition to the mail campaign, Respondent’s firm displayed a billboard and bus campaign targeting the same individuals as the written solicitations – storm victims with commercial and/or residential damage. As with his admission in his written campaign, Respondent
acknowledged that he did not disclose, by city or town, a bona fide office location of the lawyers who would perform the services advertised.

Sanction recommendation

Respondent’s Counsel cites In re Eugene P. Redmann, 2021-00955 (La. 10/5/21), 325 So.3d 366, and In re John W. Redmann, 2021-01060 (La. 10/5/21), 325 So.3d. 364 in support of a baseline sanction of Public Reprimand. These cases are of limited value in that both cases involved consent discipline and negligence on the part of Messrs. Redmann. The Respondent’s knowing actions call for more a serious sanction than in the Redmann cases in light of the multiple offenses, knowing state of mind, and vulnerability of the hurricane victims who were the target of the solicitations at issue. The committee has, therefore, deviated upward from the Redman cases and the ABA baseline sanction.

(Mike Frisch)