Hoist By Her Client Picard
The Louisiana Supreme Court imposed a six-month suspension with all but 60 days suspended
Beginning in 2017 and continuing through 2022, respondent represented Felicia Picard in three separate legal matters: a personal injury matter, a criminal matter, and a family law matter. While handling the personal injury matter, respondent provided Ms. Picard with extensive financial assistance, but she failed to obtain Ms. Picard’s written consent to the terms and conditions under which such financial assistance was made. Many of the payments to Ms. Picard were also not supported by documented obligations for living expenses. Additionally, in the criminal case, respondent improperly paid $635 to a bail bondsman to secure a bond on Ms. Picard’s behalf. Finally, in the family law matter, respondent advised Ms. Picard in 2019 that she had filed a petition for divorce, but this representation was false.
She filed a bar complaint
During the sworn statement, the ODC again requested additional information from respondent pertaining to her representation of Ms. Picard. Respondent repeatedly assured the ODC the information was forthcoming. Although she provided the ODC with a supplemental response on February 28, 2023, this response was incomplete, and respondent has not provided any further information.
The court
The record of this matter supports a finding that respondent provided improper financial assistance to her client, made a misrepresentation to her client, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. This conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged in the formal charges.
Having found evidence of professional misconduct, we now turn to a determination of the appropriate sanction for respondent’s actions. In determining a sanction, we are mindful that disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession, and deter future misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So. 2d 1173 (La. 1987). The discipline to be imposed depends upon the facts of each case and the seriousness of the offenses involved considered in light of any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So. 2d 520 (La. 1984).
Although the hearing committee and the disciplinary board found that respondent’s violations of the financial assistance rule were negligent, we disagree. The record contains a copy of a text message respondent sent to Ms. Picard in response to a request for an advance of funds to pay living expenses. Respondent told Ms. Picard that “I’m not even supposed to be giving you money like I am. … I am putting MY bar license on the line here because I know your situation is hard.” This exchange indicates that respondent’s violations of the financial assistance rule were knowing. Respondent’s misrepresentation to her client and her failure to cooperate with the ODC were knowing and intentional.
Sanction
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and the disciplinary board, and considering the record and the brief filed by the ODC, it is ordered that Desha M. Gay, Louisiana Bar Roll number 36855, be and she hereby is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. It is further ordered that all but sixty days of this suspension shall be deferred. Following the completion of the active portion of her suspension, respondent shall be placed on probation for a period of one year with the condition that she attend and successfully complete the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Ethics School. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent and the ODC execute a formal probation plan.
Justice Crichton
I dissent because I find the sanction imposed unduly lenient and would not defer any of respondent’s suspension.
(Mike Frisch)