Lawyer Talk

The Louisiana Supreme Court has ordered a six-month suspension for a mulyiple client conflict of interest

In August 2022, the ODC received a complaint from Judge Rick Warren of the 2nd Judicial District Court reporting that respondent had appeared in his court for a child in need of care (“CINC”) proceeding on July 11, 2022. On that day, respondent advised the court that he represented Martin Cruz, a criminal defendant charged with molestation of a child under the age of thirteen; Martin’s children, including MC, the alleged victim of the molestation; and Sandra Cruz, the stepmother of the alleged victim and the biological mother of the other child subject of the CINC proceeding.

Judge Warren refused to permit respondent to enroll as counsel in the multiple adverse representations and ordered respondent to leave the courtroom. Information provided by the judge reflects that respondent made representations on behalf of his criminal defendant client, admitting that his client had molested his daughter. Respondent also interfered with the investigation conducted by the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) by limiting questions posed to the children and prohibiting any questions of “abuse.”

In his response to the complaint, respondent indicated that he engaged in no misconduct and would continue to handle the family’s personal issues if left alone to do so. The ODC issued a subpoena directing respondent to appear for a sworn statement, which was taken on September 26, 2022.

During the statement, respondent failed to acknowledge or appreciate that his simultaneous representation of the criminal defendant/father, the stepmother, and the children – including the victim of the father’s molestation – reflected a prohibited conflict of interest. Respondent acknowledged that he had been “removed” from the representation of the criminal defendant/father and affirmatively stated that he had no further conversations with the family members or involvement in the matter.

However, on October 19, 2022, the ODC received a telephone call from the district attorney who reported that, notwithstanding respondent’s removal from the representation by the judge, he received a letter from respondent stating that he still represented Martin Cruz and expected a response from the district attorney to an earlier discovery request. The district attorney subsequently filed a written complaint with the ODC against respondent.

Respondent lived in the same RV park as the putative clients

During the committee hearing, respondent repeatedly testified that part of his plan (and the reason why there was no conflict of interest) was for Martin to plead guilty because he would likely spend at least twenty-five years in jail. When asked to reconcile that statement with the June 15, 2022 letter in which he advised that Sandra and MC were not going to cooperate and wanted Martin released so he could support the family, respondent replied that his statements in the letter were “lawyer talk” and not really intended to be true.

Hearing Committee findings

Respondent had a long-standing friendship with the Cruz family, and it did appear that he had a sincere belief that he was doing the right thing by trying to help them. However, as a member of the bar, he should have immediately recognized his conflict of interest. Respondent could have represented one member of the family or no members, but not all. The conflict was clear and should have been readily apparent to him.

The court

Based on our review, there are no cases in the court’s jurisprudence with facts like those in the instant matter, and the cases cited by the hearing committee are supportive of the recommended sanction. Nevertheless, it is deeply concerning that respondent, who has more than fifty years of experience in the practice of law, did not recognize that his representation of the defendant/father and victim/daughter was a conflict of interest. It is also concerning that respondent has never acknowledged the wrongful nature of his conduct, even after being repeatedly advised about the conflict by other attorneys and disqualified from the case by the judge. However, there has been no indication or allegation that respondent saw the conflict and was perhaps acting in defiance. Therefore, despite our concerns, we cannot say that the recommended sanction is wholly inappropriate for this matter.

After further considering the absence of any objection by the ODC to the hearing committee’s report, we will accept the committee’s recommendation and suspend respondent from the practice of law for six months.

(Mike Frisch)