An Unproven Horror Story

A Louisiana Hearing Committee found insufficient evidence of any ethical violations in a case an alleged conflict of interest

The allegations in the Formal Charges filed against Respondent read as a horror story of terrible attorney behavior. However, after more than 7 hours of testimony and the presentation of binders full of documents, ODC has failed to offer any credible evidence supporting the allegations or showing any ethical breach by Respondent. The findings of fact recited above demonstrate a brief but professional representation by Respondent. Though Ms. Chenier is disappointed by the ultimate outcome of her case, ODC’s charges against Respondent remain unproven.

There were two counts

Count 2, pertaining to Charles Chenier, will be addressed first as it is the least complex of the two counts against Respondent.

The Committee finds that Respondent, Anne Watson, and Complainant, Charles Chenier, never entered into an attorney-client relationship. Both Complainants testified that Charles Chenier signed a retainer contract with Respondent, however, neither was able to produce that document. Respondent specifically denied ever executing such agreement and credibly testified that she did not agree to represent Charles Chenier because of questions about his marital status with Taneshia Aaron Chenier, and questions surrounding his involvement in the lease of the premises at issue in the underlying litigation. The Committee finds Respondent’s testimony more credible than that of the Complainants. Ms. Chenier testified at the hearing that she and Charles Chenier have been married since 2012, and have never been separated other than when he was out of town for work. This testimony was directly contradicted by her deposition testimony in the underlying litigation in which she testified that Charles Chenier was living with his mother in August 2013. In the eyes of the Committee, this inconsistent testimony was significantly damaging to Ms. Chenier’s credibility, and gave support to Respondent’s explanation for declining representation of Charles Chenier. Respondent did not agree to represent Charles Chenier after their initial meeting and requested that he provide documents to clarify the lease issues before she would consider representing him. Those documents were never provided and Respondent never chose to represent him.

ODC has alleged that Respondent failed to return file materials to Charles Chenier. However, the consistent testimony of Respondent and her office staff was that no such file existed because Respondent never undertook Mr. Chenier’s representation. ODC relies on Mr. Chenier’s claim that Respondent’s office staff told him that his file was in storage. Rebecca Soileau testified that she did not know who Charles Chenier was when he called to request his file and identified himself as a past client. She may have told him that his file was in storage, because she did not know, in the moment, that he was never a client and no file existed. This off-the-cuff conversation between office staff and Mr. Chenier is not enough to create a duty for Respondent to produce a file that never actually existed.

 All charges brought by ODC with regard to Charles Chenier are predicated on there being an attorney-client relationship with Respondent. Given the finding that no such relationship existed, the Committee finds that ODC has failed to meet its burden of proof with regard to any charges stemming from Complainant, Charles Chenier. The Committee recommends that Count 2 of the Formal Charges be dismissed in its entirety.

There was another complainant

 ODC asks the Committee to believe that there was a significant risk that the representation of Ms. Chenier would be materially limited by Respondent’s relationship with Dr. Jason Fontenot. ODC alleges that “Respondent’s personal desire to appease her boyfriend and not jeopardize his ability to purchase a house from Billy Fontenot,” created a conflict of interest. The Committee finds that ODC offered no proof in that regard apart from the less than credible testimony of Ms. Chenier. ODC’s allegations are mere speculation and implication not supported by the evidence.

Ms. Chenier testified that Respondent explicitly told her that she was not taking certain actions on Ms. Chenier’s claim because of the fact that Dr. Jason Fontenot was buying a different house from Billy Fontenot. This conversation is not alleged to have happened until September 2013. Respondent has, at all times, denied delaying any action in Ms. Chenier’s case for the benefit of Dr. Fontenot and has consistently denied telling Ms. Chenier that she ever did so. It is undisputed fact that the Petition for Damages was filed 5 weeks after Respondent undertook the representation, suggesting timely handling by Respondent. Respondent’s testimony is also more credible in light of the fact that that her relationship with Dr. Fontenot ended on August 20, 2013, within a week of her undertaking Ms. Chenier’s representation on August 13, 2013.

Again, this Committee finds the testimony of Respondent more credible than that of Ms. Chenier. The evidence is clear that Respondent had no real motivation to take such prejudicial actions against her client’s case at the time that Ms. Chenier alleges she was doing so. This Committee has been given no reason to believe the far-fetched testimony of Ms. Chenier over the far more plausible testimony of the far more credible Respondent.

Respondent testified that she informed Ms. Chenier, in their initial consultation, that she had met Billy Fontenot briefly as part of Dr. Jason Fontenot’s pending purchase from Billy Fontenot. Ms. Chenier denies such conversation ever occurred. Based on the evidence, the Committee finds that Respondent did mention having briefly met Billy Fontenot. It is the Committee’s belief that such disclosure was made not in the course of disclosing a potential conflict of interest, which Respondent did not think existed, but as a matter of making conversation between an attorney and client doing business in a small town.

ODC argues that a conflict of interest existed regardless of whether Ms. Chenier recognized such conflict existed, thus triggering Respondent’s duty to avoid the conflict. This Committee does not believe that Respondent’s ongoing relationship with Dr. Jason Fontenot as of August 13, 2013, created a conflict of interest under Rule 1.7. The Rule states that a conflict of interest exists when, “there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to… a third person.”(Emphasis added) The Committee does not believe that the young dating relationship between Respondent and Dr. Jason Fontenot rose to the level of “significant risk” contemplated by Rule 1.7. Respondent and Dr. Fontenot had been dating for less than 6 months, maintained separate households, and had no plans for Respondent to move into the home being purchased. Respondent had no “responsibility” to Dr. Jason Fontenot either by law, or in her own perception. Respondent has denied that any part of her thinking as the attorney for Ms. Chenier was swayed by her relationship with Dr. Jason Fontenot and his purchase of a home form Billy Fontenot. The circumstances are connected in time, but not in fact.

Further, all of the evidence presented showed that Dr. Jason Fontenot and Billy Fontenot had already decided on a price for their sale before August 2013, and were just waiting for a contract with a real estate agent to expire before finalizing the sale, so as to avoid the payment of agent’s fees. Under these circumstances there is no reason to think that any action by Respondent could have affected Dr. Jason Fontenot’s purchase. In their testimony, both Dr. Jason Fontenot and Billy Fontenot acknowledged that Respondent had nothing to do their real estate deal. Notably, despite the fact that, as the seller, he had much to lose, Billy Fontenot was direct is his testimony that Respondent’s action had no effect on the purchase price of the home being sold to Dr. Jason Fontenot.

ODC has provided this Committee with no legal citations which would suggest that these circumstances would give rise to a conflict of interest. The sexual relationship cases cited by ODC have no application to the claims against Respondent. Further, independent research by the Committee has turned up no case law in Louisiana that would suggest these circumstances qualify as a conflict of interest under Rule 1.7. As no conflict of interest existed, Respondent had no duty to obtain a waiver of the conflict under Rule 1.7 (b) (4).

The committee also rejected a charge that the attorney violated the duty of confidentiality. (Mike Frisch)