Too Many Clients
A Louisiana Hearing Committee found a conflict of interest in multiple representation
Respondent’s conflict of interest arises out of his role in attempting to represent various members of the Cruz family. This would include Martin Cruz, who had been arrested for allegations of abuse involving his minor daughter; Sandra Cruz, the wife of Martin Cruz and stepmother of the minor daughter and mother of a younger son between her and Martin Cruz; and the minor daughter and minor son in a Child In Need of Care proceeding. The relevant facts are summarized as follows.
Prior to the events in Jackson Parish involving the arrest of Martin Cruz, Mr. Sharp lived in a RV Park near Oak Grove, Louisiana that was owned by an individual named Gary Cathey. Martin Cruz worked for Mr. Cathey and lived in the RV Park with his wife and two children. Mr. Sharp became friends with Martin Cruz and he got to know him and his wife, Sandra Cruz, and their two children. Mr. Cruz was Latino and spoke fluent English. At some point Mr. Sharp came to understand that Sandra Cruz was the stepmother of the daughter and that the biological mother was living in Central America. The two children belonging to Martin Cruz would play with Mr. Sharp’s grandchildren and they had become friends. After several years, Mr. Martin Cruz purchased property in Jackson parish and moved to Jackson Parish.
One day Gary Cathy approached Mr. Sharp and told him that Sandra Cruz needed to speak with him. He then met with Sandra Cruz who told him that Martin Cruz was in jail. Sandra Cruz told Mr. Sharp that she had noticed that the minor daughter had been acting unusual. She took away the child’s cell phone and she saw text messages from the minor daughter to a friend that she was unhappy and wanted to “do herself in.” Sandra Cruz knew something was wrong and she finally got the child to admit that she had been sexually abused by Martin Cruz for a number of months. Sandra Cruz then told Martin Cruz that he was not allowed to come back to the home and made him go to the Sheriff’s Office and confess what he had done. Martin Cruz went to the Sheriff’s Office and confessed to the crime of abusing his minor daughter. He was arrested and placed in jail. Sandra Cruz also informed Mr. Sharp that the sheriff’s deputies had insisted that they interview the minor child. Sandra Cruz had said “no”, but they insisted. So, she brought the minor daughter to the Sheriff’s Office where she was interviewed by two male deputies. (ODC 9 at 183-193). According to Mr. Sharp, Sandra Cruz told him that she was not allowed to be in the room while the child was interviewed.
Respondent then met with Martin Cruz
Mr. Sharp informed the District Attorney’s Office that he was going to be representing (1) Martin Cruz, (2) Sandra Cruz and (3) the minor child who was the subject of the alleged sexual abuse. He advised the DA’s office that he did not want the minor child to undergo further questioning, physical exams or questioning by the state. He said that Martin Cruz had a job where he made approximately $3,000 per week and that they wanted him released from jail with restrictions so that he could return to work and support the family. Mr. Sharp said that they did not want Mr. Cruz (who had already admitted to sexually abusing the minor daughter) to return to the family home until he had been ”evaluated, treated, and undergone whatever counseling is necessary.” Mr. Sharp informed the assistant District Attorney that Sandra Cruz and the minor daughter did not want Martin Cruz to be in jail, that they did not want to cooperate with his prosecution and that they wanted the matter handled extra judicially. Lastly, in his letter, Mr. Sharp said that his goal was to reunite the family if possible and to ensure that the minor daughter continues to reside with the stepmother, Sandra Cruz, in a safe and stable environment.
Then he got involved in the state investigation
Let us emphasize this again: because Mr. Sharp interjected himself into the DCFS investigation as the attorney for Sandra Cruz and restricted the DCFS investigation, this was part of the reason why DCFS removed the children out of the home and away from the stepmother. Sandra Cruz should have been given advice by someone who did not also represent Martin Cruz. That Mr. Sharp could not recognize this conflict of interest is baffling to the committee.
At a subsequent hearing
after he has impeded the investigation by the DCFS, Mr. Sharp arrives at the CINC hearing on July 11th and announces that he is there to represent the children, the stepmother, and the father. (ODC 2 at 19). This conflict of interest was immediately obvious to Judge Rick Warren who advised Mr. Sharp that he could not represent all of the family members at the same time and that he was now prevented from representing any of them in any of the proceedings. The Committee agrees that Judge Warren made the correct decision. Also, during his testimony at the December 12th hearing, Mr. Sharp said that he has been appointed to represent children in the past in similar cases. But, if that is true, then again how could he not see the obvious conflict that he could not represent the children if he was already representing the father who was accused of abusing one of the children?
Further, even after his conflict of interest was made known to him by other members of the bar (including a District Court Judge), Mr. Sharp continued to attempt to represent the various parties. On October 17, 2022, he sent a letter advising that he was still attorney of record for Martin Cruz.
The committee noted his friendship with the family
it did appear that he had a sincere belief that he was doing the right thing by trying to help out the family. However, as a member of the bar, Mr. Sharp should have immediately recognized his conflict of interest in representing the various members of the family. He could have represented one member of the family or he could have chosen to not represent any of the members of the family. But he could not have represented all of them. The conflict of interest was clear and should have been readily apparent to him.
The committee recommends a six-month suspension. (Mike Frisch)