Suspension Ordered

The Louisiana Supreme Court imposed a two-year suspension of a previously-disciplined attorney for misconduct in two matters

In September 2016, complainants, Kimberly Stewart McDuffie and Mark Crocklen, Sr., retained respondent to represent their son, Mark Crocklen, Jr., in a criminal case in Jefferson Parish. Respondent agreed to represent Mark Jr. through trial for a flat fee of $20,000. Ms. McDuffie paid respondent $10,000 via cashier’s check, and Mr. Crocklen, Sr. paid the remaining $10,000 balance in bi-monthly payments of $150.

In May 2018, while the representation was still ongoing, respondent was suspended from the practice of law in Burns I. Respondent failed to notify Mark Jr. of his suspension, as required by Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 26. He also failed to
return Mark Jr.’s client file or timely refund the unearned portion of the fee complainants paid. Indeed, respondent accepted 24 separate payments of attorney’s fees from Mr. Crocklen, Sr. after he was suspended. Furthermore, respondent failed to withdraw from the representation of Mark Jr. and “appointed” another attorney to handle the criminal case without Mark Jr.’s knowledge or prior consent.

Upon learning of respondent’s suspension, complainants attempted to communicate with respondent, to no avail. Complainants then attempted to secure new counsel for their son, but their efforts were unsuccessful due to a pending trial date. In October 2018, Mark Jr. pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve forty years in prison.

Another matter

In December 2021, Chadsidy Blackstone paid respondent $3,500 to represent her in a disciplinary action brought against her by her employer. By June 2022, Ms. Blackstone had become dissatisfied with the progress of the case. She terminated respondent and requested that he return the fee she paid. In response, respondent provided Ms. Blackstone with a “detailed bill” purporting to detail over $9,050 worth of legal work performed in the case. In July 2022, Ms. Blackstone filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC.

Proposed sanction

Turning to the issue of appropriate sanction, the board agreed with the committee that a two-year suspension is reasonable for respondent’s misconduct. Respondent’s unauthorized practice of law did not involve the active performance of any legal services, and as such, does not warrant disbarment or the most severe suspension. However, respondent also engaged in additional misconduct, and he has a prior disciplinary history.

The court accepted the sanction. (Mike Frisch)