In re Bullock, 2016 La. LEXIS 716

In July 2011 a three-year-old child of Geron Trenise Jones was killed by a motorcyclist (Shawn Dejean); Jones retained attorney Jalila E. Bullock on contingency to pursue a wrongful-death claim.
Bullock discovered the driver lacked liability insurance and did not have a viable defendant, but did not disclose that to Jones and did not timely file suit to interrupt prescription.
Bullock communicated sporadically, wired Jones $7,500 from her personal funds (promised a second $7,500 that was never paid), and repeatedly refused to turn over the client file or confirm that any lawsuit had been filed.
Jones learned, after filing a complaint with ODC, that no suit had been filed and there was no insurance check; she later filed a legal-malpractice suit against Bullock, which Bullock pleaded prescription in.
ODC charged Bullock with violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 8.4(a) and 8.4(c); parties stipulated to facts and violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4 and 8.4(c).
The hearing committee recommended suspension of one year and one day; the disciplinary board recommended one year and one day suspension with six months deferred; the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the board’s recommendation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (ODC / Jones)	Defendant's Argument (Bullock)	Held
Did Bullock neglect the client and allow the claim to prescribe?	Bullock failed to file suit and let prescription run, causing loss of the client’s claim.	Admitted poor communication and missed filings but sought to mitigate/had limited recovery potential.	Held: Yes — stipulations and evidence show neglect and failure to interrupt prescription.
Did Bullock fail to communicate and mislead the client about case status?	Bullock misrepresented insurance check problems, failed to disclose lack of insurance and malpractice, and withheld the file.	Admitted inadequate communication and remorse but disputed intent to deceive.	Held: Yes — violations of Rule 1.4 and 8.4(c) established.
Did Bullock’s conduct amount to ethical misconduct (not merely malpractice)?	Misrepresentation, concealment, and failure to disclose malpractice elevated conduct beyond ordinary malpractice.	Characterized errors as negligence and sought a fully deferred suspension.	Held: Yes — misconduct rose above ordinary malpractice warranting discipline.
What sanction is appropriate?	ODC: one year and one day suspension with six months deferred; emphasizing deceit and potential harm.	Bullock: fully deferred one-year suspension.	Held: One year and one day suspension, six months deferred (with deferred portion executable upon further misconduct); costs assessed.

In re: Torry, 48 So.3d 1038 (La. 2010) (stipulated facts/admissions binding in disciplinary proceedings)
In re: Banks, 18 So.3d 57 (La. 2009) (court conducts independent review in disciplinary cases)
In re: Caulfield, 683 So.2d 714 (La. 1996) (manifest-error standard for committee fact findings)
In re: Pardue, 633 So.2d 150 (La. 1994) (manifest-error standard discussed)
In re: Brown, 967 So.2d 482 (La. 2007) (distinguishing ordinary malpractice from sanctionable misconduct when combined with deceit)
In re: Cade, 166 So.3d 243 (La. 2015) (one year and one day suspension, six months deferred, for allowing a personal-injury claim to be dismissed and failing to inform client)
In re: August, 45 So.3d 1019 (La. 2010) (two-year suspension, mostly deferred, for letting wrongful-death action prescribe and misleading client)
In re: Southall, 710 So.2d 245 (La. 1998) (one year and one day suspension, six months deferred, for neglect, failure to file, and poor communication)
In re: Elbert, 698 So.2d 949 (La. 1997) (one-year suspension with deferred portion for failing to communicate settlement and settling without advising clients)
Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So.2d 520 (La. 1984) (sanction factors and disciplinary purposes)
Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So.2d 1173 (La. 1987) (disciplinary aims: protect public, preserve integrity, deter misconduct)