Bond Payment Violates Rules

The Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommends a fully stayed suspension and probation 

The Committee found that ODC established that Respondent had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged. These legal conclusions of the Committee are supported by the factual allegations asserted in the formal charges and/or by the evidence submitted in support of the allegations. See In re Donnan, 2001-3058 (La. 1/10/03), 838 So.2d 715. The Board adopts the Committee’s findings and reasons therefor. The Board also finds that Rule 1.8(e)(5)(v) was violated by Respondent. Respondent failed to provide ODC with documentation establishing that Ms. Picard consented, in writing, to the terms and conditions under which she received financial assistance from Respondent.10 Respondent’s statement in Paragraph VI of her answer conclusively admits this infraction. Her statement reads:

Respondent admits she provided Felicia Picard financial assistance during the term of legal representation. Respondent further admits she failed to provide the ODC with documentation establishing that Felicia Picard consented, in writing, to the terms and conditions under which financial assistance was made. Respondent was unaware of this requirement . . . [.]

Respondent’s Answer to Formal Charges, Para. VI, filed July 25, 2023.

Further, Respondent violated Rule 1.8(e) by improperly securing a bond on Ms. Picard’s behalf. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 327 expressly provides that a person “shall not be released on bail for which an attorney at law . . . becomes a surety or provides money or property for bail.” In the matter of State v. Felicia Picard, 18-CR-85, 16th JDC, Parish of Iberia. Respondent is identified as Ms. Picard’s counsel of record. The criminal prosecution was “nolle prossed” on January 16, 2020. In association with this prosecution, on October 12, 2017, Respondent paid $635 to Mike’s Bail Bonding to secure a $2,500 bond for Ms. Picard. ODC Exhibit 29. This action was clearly in violation of Code of Criminal Procedure article 327.

Moreover, this action is in violation of Rule 1.8(e) as Respondent was providing improper financial assistance to a client in connection with a pending or contemplated litigation. Her paying of the $635 to the bail bondsman does not fall within any of the exceptions to this rule.

As discussed above, Respondent claims to have not been familiar with Rule 1.8. The disciplinary rules set forth the minimum level of conduct below which no lawyer may fall without being subject to disciplinary action, and ignorance of the Rules of Professional Conduct is not an excuse. In re Grevemberg, 2002-2721, pp. 7-8 (La. 1/25/03), 828 So.2d 1283, 1288. Similarly, “[n]o one may avail himself of ignorance of the law.” La. Civ. Code art. 5

Sanction

the Board adopts the Committee’s recommendation that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months, fully deferred, followed by one year of probation to include attendance at the LSBA Ethics School. The Board recommends that Respondent attend Ethics School by the end of her probationary period, instead of within the first six months of the probationary period as recommended by the Committee.

(Mike Frisch)