In Re: Andres Humberto Aguilar
236 So. 3d 1246
| La. | 2017Background
- Andres H. Aguilar, admitted 2011, was interim-suspended on August 2, 2017, and faced formal disciplinary charges for two client matters (Charbonneau divorce; Grant personal-injury).
- Charbonneau: retained Aguilar via Pro Bono Project (Feb 2013); Aguilar failed to file the divorce petition and misrepresented to client that it had been filed.
- Grant: Aguilar accepted a referral from a “runner,” paid the referrer $500 in cash, met the client once, then ceased communication and allowed the claim to prescribe.
- Aguilar relocated to Texas, failed to update his LSBA address, and initially did not respond to ODC inquiries; he was later served and cooperated by stipulating to facts.
- At hearing Aguilar testified to mental-health issues (OCD), prior employment struggles, and mitigation (inexperience, remorse); a treating psychiatrist and social worker confirmed OCD but not inability to practice.
- Hearing committee and disciplinary board found violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 7.4(a), 8.1(c), 8.4(a)-(c); recommended one-year suspension with most deferred and conditions including restitution, CLE, and mental-health monitoring.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Aguilar violate professional conduct rules by neglecting clients and failing to communicate? | ODC: Aguilar neglected Charbonneau and Grant, causing actual harm; violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16. | Aguilar admitted facts but emphasized mitigation (OCD, inexperience, remorse). | Court found clear and convincing evidence of neglect and communication failures; violations sustained. |
| Did Aguilar unlawfully solicit or use a runner/referral fee? | ODC: Payment of $500 to a runner constitutes improper solicitation (Rule 7.4) and reflects dishonest conduct. | Aguilar claimed the payment was unexpected, not part of business practice; denied scheme intent. | Court found payment to runner and solicitation violations established. |
| Did Aguilar fail to cooperate with the ODC? | ODC: Aguilar initially ignored certified mail and contact attempts, hampering investigations. | Aguilar later responded, was deposed, and entered joint stipulations. | Court concluded initial failure to cooperate (Rule 8.1(c)) but noted subsequent cooperation. |
| Appropriate sanction? | ODC: Recommended more severe discipline than committee/board (objected to leniency). | Aguilar: urged leniency given mitigation (mental health, inexperience, no prior record). | Court imposed suspension of 1 year + 1 day, all but 9 months deferred, retroactive to interim suspension; followed by 2 years unsupervised probation with CLE, JLAP contract, and restitution conditions. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Goff, 837 So. 2d 1201 (La. 2003) (discipline for attorney involved with runner-based solicitation; suspension precedent)
- In re Christenberry, 132 So. 3d 388 (La. 2014) (suspension for neglect, communication failures, failure to cooperate; sanction guidance)
- In re Banks, 18 So. 3d 57 (La. 2009) (court’s independent-review standard in disciplinary matters)