In re Cade
166 So. 3d 243
| La. | 2015Background
- In 2005 Jamilah Ekpema hired attorney Melvin N. Cade on contingency for a personal‑injury suit; Cade filed suit and appeared at deposition.
- A November 5, 2008 trial was removed from the docket after discovery deadlines were missed; Cade thereafter took no action and the case lay dormant.
- Ekpema sent multiple letters (2010–2012) asking for status; Cade failed to respond and did not file a withdrawal; the defendant moved to dismiss and the suit was dismissed with prejudice for abandonment in January 2012.
- ODC charged Cade with violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 8.4(a), and 8.4(d); Cade asserted he had taken full‑time government work after Hurricane Katrina and could not work the case, expressed remorse, and acknowledged prior disciplinary matters.
- A hearing committee and the disciplinary board found Cade knowingly neglected the matter and failed to communicate, causing significant client harm; recommended suspension for one year and one day with six months deferred and two years probation.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the recommendation and ordered the suspension (six months deferred) followed by two years unsupervised probation; costs assessed against Cade.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neglect/abandonment of client matter | Cade neglected Ekpema’s case by failing to prosecute, causing dismissal | Cade cited post‑Katrina loss of clientele and full‑time government job that prevented work | Court held Cade neglected the matter; violated Rule 1.3 (suspension baseline) |
| Failure to communicate | Cade failed to respond to client inquiries and inform her of dismissal | Cade claimed he told Ekpema he could no longer handle the case but did not formally withdraw | Court held Cade violated Rule 1.4 for inadequate communication |
| Failure to withdraw properly | ODC: as counsel of record, Cade had duty to move case or formally withdraw | Cade admitted telling client he would stop handling case but did not file withdrawal | Court held he should have either advanced the matter or properly withdrawn (Rule 1.1 implicated) |
| Appropriate discipline | ODC sought suspension consistent with ABA standards and prior jurisprudence | Cade offered mitigation (remorse, cooperation, personal hardship, prior sanctions) | Court imposed one year and one day suspension with six months deferred and two years unsupervised probation, adopting board’s recommendation |
Key Cases Cited
- In re: Banks, 18 So.3d 57 (La. 2009) (standard of review in disciplinary appeals)
- In re: Caulfield, 683 So.2d 714 (La. 1996) (manifest error standard for committee factual findings)
- In re: Pardue, 633 So.2d 150 (La. 1994) (review standards for disciplinary factual findings)
- Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Reis, 513 So.2d 1173 (La. 1987) (purposes of disciplinary proceedings)
- Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Whittington, 459 So.2d 520 (La. 1984) (discipline depends on facts, aggravation, mitigation)
- In re: Christenberry, 132 So.3d 388 (La. 2014) (suspension guidance for neglect and communication failures)