“Same Old, Same Old” Fee: A “Crapload Of Smoke”

A one-year suspension has been imposed by the Louisiana Supreme Court for an attorney’s criminal conduct.

In determining sanction, the court struggled to balance the serious nature of the misconduct with the attorney’s dramatic recovery from substance abuse problems.

The story

In late 2013, the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office obtained information that respondent was receiving drugs for payment of his legal services. Specifically, a cooperating individual (CI) contacted the Narcotics Division of the Sheriff’s Office on December 12, 2013 to advise that she had come into contact with respondent while attending court earlier that morning, and that respondent had offered his legal services in exchange for marijuana. The CI reported that she had used respondent in the past for legal counsel, and had paid him with marijuana on three separate occasions over a period of one year or more. On the most recent occasion, respondent approached the CI and said he had heard the CI may need some help again. The CI then asked respondent how much his services would cost, or would it be the “same old, same old.” Respondent replied, “same old, old,” meaning that he would accept marijuana for his legal services in place of currency.

Narcotics officers then arranged for the CI to speak with respondent by telephone concerning the details of the transaction. During a recorded conversation about respondent’s fee, the CI advised respondent that he had “a crap load of smoke if you want some of that” (meaning marijuana). Respondent asked how much “stuff” the CI had, and the CI responded, “A whole backpack full.” Respondent replied, “Oh, my God,” and readily agreed to “collect payments from both accounts,” meaning that he would accept the marijuana to offset the total attorney’s fees owed by CI.

Narcotics officers then set up a controlled “exchange” which occurred on December 20, 2013 in the parking lot of a retail store in Covington. The marijuana provided to the CI by law enforcement was approximately one-half pound in weight and had an approximate street value of $2,500.1 After departing the area with the marijuana as well as marked cash provided to the CI by law enforcement, respondent was stopped for a traffic violation and arrested. He was booked with possession with intent to distribute marijuana and failure to stop at a stop sign.

After the arrest, the attorney entered treatment and participated in the Bar’s recovery program.

The following day, respondent, through counsel, self-reported his arrest to the ODC as well as his intent to cooperate with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (“JLAP”). Respondent was subsequently admitted to the Palmetto Addiction Recovery Center in Rayville, Louisiana. Following an evaluation, respondent was diagnosed with alcohol and cannabis dependence and unresolved grief and depression stemming from the death of his father in 2011. Respondent then entered a ninety-day inpatient treatment program at Palmetto and successfully completed the program in April 2014. On May 2, 2014, respondent executed a five-year recovery agreement with JLAP. He has been fully compliant with the requirements of the agreement since it was executed. 

The Attorney Disciplinary Board had proposed a stayed two-year suspension with conditions, a result that the court majority rejected.

We find the appropriate sanction for respondent’s criminal conduct is a one year suspension from the practice of law. Considering that respondent bartered his legal services for illegal drugs, directly implicating the practice of law and causing harm to the legal profession, we will not defer any portion of the suspension. Accordingly, we reject the board’s recommended discipline and will suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year.

Justice Weimer concurred and dissented

In my view, the respondent’s actions have placed this court in a quandary. On the one hand, the respondent has made a laudable recovery from the substance abuse issues that undisputedly motivated his misconduct. On the other hand, and also an undisputable proposition, the respondent’s use of his law license in an illegal bargain was an abuse of his privilege to practice law. To resolve this quandary between an attorney’s praiseworthy recovery and his misconduct that debases the privilege to practice law, I believe further details should be considered. Because this case is at its heart a disciplinary matter, it is appropriate to deal first with the details of the misconduct…

Turning then to how the respondent’s recovery affects this case, it should be noted that at every level, including this court, the attorney disciplinary system encourages attorneys to confront and conquer substance abuse. The record in this case reflects that the respondent clearly accepted responsibility for his actions, promptly self-reported his misconduct, immediately sought out the assistance of the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP), and acquiesced in submitting to a long-term inpatient treatment effort. He successfully completed treatment and thereafter executed a JLAP monitoring agreement with which he has remained in strict compliance. The hearing committee and the disciplinary board were persuaded by the respondent’s commitment to recovery, his genuine remorse, and his commitment to refrain from further such misconduct. The hearing committee was also favorably impressed with the respondent’s plans to use his unfortunate experience to help others in battling addiction. Two judges testified regarding the respondent’s professionalism after his inpatient treatment. Both judges remarked that the respondent has been attentive to his clients’ cases, has displayed great skill in his representation, and has maintained a respectful demeanor with the court and with opposing counsel.

I would impose a two-year period of suspension, deferring all but six months, and place the respondent on probation for the remainder of his suspension period. As a condition of probation, I would require continued compliance with the respondent’s JLAP recovery agreement for the duration of his probation.

My hope is that the respondent continues on his path to a lifetime of recovery. Virtually all who testified were impressed that he would do so. The sanction that I propose, including the probationary conditions, would provide an extended period during which the disciplinary system could remain vigilant in seeing that the respondent’s expected recovery indeed remains on solid footing.

Justice Guidry dissented and would impose more severe discipline.

Justice Knoll also dissented but would impose a lesser sanction.

The court’s function in disciplinary proceedings is primarily to protect the public, not to punish the lawyer. See Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So. 2d 1173, 1177-78 (La. 1987). Recognizing this principle, both the hearing committee and the disciplinary board recommended that any period of suspension imposed against respondent be fully deferred. Furthermore, respondent is contrite and has been an outstanding participant in the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program. Under these circumstances, I find an actual period of suspension of one year to be unduly harsh.

The Louisiana Record had a story about the attorney last month. The ABA Journal also reported, linking to the Louisiana Record. (Mike Frisch)