Making Matters Worse

A Louisiana Hearing Committee recommends a six-month suspension for an attorney’s explanation for his failure to timely appear for two court proceedings.

One count involves a failure to appear in a timely manner for a court proceeding and subsequent explanation

The Hearing Committee is further surprised at some of the responses of Stegeman to charges related to his failure to appear in court. His June 24, 2022 response to the ODC, 1 month after the trial, specifically states he was 10 minutes late. At a minimum he was 40 minutes late for Court and 70 minutes late for his pre-trial meeting with his client. He continued to maintain this 10-minute position in his June 24, 2022 23 and September 12, 2022 written submissions to the ODC. He further submits that [client] Arnouville accepted the terms of the settlement. There is no evidence of this occurring. These responses are deceptive and untrue.

Similar issues in a failure to appear in a ‘nasty” divorce matter

Based on all of the evidence it is concluded that misstatements in the Motion by Stegeman were negligent, however the representations to the ODC, particularly as it relates to the involvement of Stegeman’s staff were intentional misrepresentations. The Hearing Committee concludes that NO staff member of Stegeman advised him that there was consent to the continuance and that this was simply made up by Stegeman.

Proposed sanction

Lawyers do make mistakes and the profession as well at the Rules of Professional Conduct recognize lawyers can make honest mistakes. Nevertheless, the bar is set very high. Perfection is encouraged and certainly approved even in the adversarial process, but it is not mandated such that an attorney should be suspended or disbarred for failing to be perfect. On the other hand, when a mistake is made the profession mandates that the response be made with complete honesty and integrity in dealing with those that have been affected by the mistake. This includes the client, the opposing attorney and his client when applicable, the Court system, and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Here the mistakes warranted an admonition, but the response by Stegeman requires suspension.

When considering all of the facts, the applicable rules and the jurisprudence the Committee concludes that the actions of Stegeman mandate a 6-month suspension.

(Mike Frisch)