Skip to content
LPBN-Icon-v1 (1)
Legal Profession Blog
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

In The Driver’s Seat

By Michael Frisch

A Louisiana Hearing Committee rejected charges relating to the complaint of a former client but found an attorney had violated the rule mandating cooperation with the investigation of the complaint.

The Committee found the Respondent’s testimony to be credible in that he sincerely believes he earned the fee. He also admitted, albeit reluctantly, that he should have cooperated with the ODC.

In addition

On or about October 17, 2022, the ODC received information that an arrest warrant had been issued in East Baton Rouge Parish for Respondent. According to the arrest warrant, Respondent leased a vehicle by false representation then failed to return said vehicle. The police report used to obtain the arrest warrant indicates Respondent leased the vehicle from Enterprise Rental Car on Siegen Lane in Baton Rouge. The lease started on July 31, 2021, with the car being required to be returned on December 10, 2021. Respondent failed to return the car. Thereafter, Enterprise Rental Car attempted to contact Respondent numerous times regarding the return of the car to no avail. Enterprise Rental Car also sent a certified letter to Respondent demanding the return of the vehicle. When Enterprise Rental Car heard nothing from Respondent, the company representatives contacted law enforcement.

Findings

The Committee finds that the Respondent knowingly violated Rule 8.1(c) by failing to cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in the two disciplinary investigations. The Committee concludes that the Respondent’s conduct was knowing because of the number of times the ODC tried to serve him and the communications between him and the ODC investigator indicates that the Respondent knew that he was not cooperating. The Committee further finds that the Respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(d) in that he knowingly violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and his doing so was prejudicial to the administration of justice with respect to these disciplinary proceedings.

The committee recommends a 60-day suspension. (Mike Frisch)

Posted in:
Bar Discipline & Process