“Wear Something Low Cut”

The Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board found that an attorney had communicated with a represented party and proposes a six-month suspension with conditions

During the process of the litigation, Respondent contacted Complainant multiple times without the authorization of Complainant’s attorney. The various contacts were via social media and electronic mail. Respondent also contacted Complainant via telephone. Complainant attached copies of the contact to the formal complaint.

The copies of the email messages reflect that Respondent was attempting to discuss the instant legal matter with Complainant. In a message dated October 1, 2019, Respondent advised Complainant that his client sought a “usaf*ck.”  In a message dated October 31, 2019, Respondent made comments to Complainant about the trial. In another message, Respondent requested that Complainant “wear something low cut.” Also attached were messages from the Facebook social media website. In a Facebook [message] dated September 1, 2019, Respondent acknowledged that he was aware that Complainant was represented by counsel, precluding a claim that he did not know if Complainant was represented by an attorney. Respondent also sent Complainant a Facebook “friend request,” a copy of which was attached to the complaint.

“Usaf*ck” defined in a footnote

A vulgar spelling of a La.C.C.P. Article 890 usufruct.

Respondent’s contentions

Respondent, in his written response to the complaint, refuted Complainant’s allegations by suggesting that he had contacted her during time periods when he believed that she was unrepresented by counsel. However, in one of his messages, Respondent stated that he knew Complainant had an attorney. Respondent admitted having sent one of the email messages dated October 31, 2019. Respondent acknowledged that he sent the email requesting that Complainant “wear something low cut.” Respondent also conceded that he sent the Facebook friend request to Complainant in an effort to find “provocative” material that he could then use to his advantage in the civil litigation.

Proposed sanction

Considering all of the above, the Board adopts the Committee’s factual findings and concludes that Respondent violated Rules 4.2(a) and 8.1(a), as charged. The Board recommends that Respondent be suspended for six months. The Board further recommends that Respondent be ordered to consult with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (“JLAP”) and that before being reinstated from the suspension, Respondent be required to undergo, at Respondent’s cost, an evaluation by a neuropsychologist or other mental health care professional designated by JLAP to determine his competency to continue to practice law and that the results of the evaluation be provided to JLAP and ODC.

(Mike Frisch)