In Re: Charles L. Dirks, III
224 So. 3d 346
| La. | 2017Background
- In 2009 Sharon Landrum retained Charles L. Dirks III to pursue a wrongful-termination claim; Dirks filed an EEOC complaint and obtained a right-to-sue letter.
- During depositions Dirks learned Landrum had not fully disclosed facts and told her the case likely would be dismissed. He did not oppose the employer’s summary-judgment motion; the court dismissed the case in August 2013.
- For about a year Dirks repeatedly told Landrum (via text) he had not heard from the court; Landrum later discovered the case had been dismissed a year earlier.
- In his ODC response Dirks initially claimed he did not see the ruling; under oath he later acknowledged he received the dismissal about a week after it was rendered but delayed notifying Landrum because he was upset with her. He admitted misconduct.
- ODC charged violations of Rule 1.4 (failure to communicate) and Rule 8.4(c) (dishonesty). The hearing committee and disciplinary board found violations and recommended a 60-day suspension; the court adopted that sanction and assessed costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Dirks violate Rule 1.4 by failing to inform client of dismissal? | ODC: Dirks failed to communicate timely, depriving client of appellate rights. | Dirks: Arguably minimized harm because case likely lacked merit; he did not intentionally prejudice client’s substantive claim. | Yes — failure to communicate proven; suspension warranted. |
| Did Dirks violate Rule 8.4(c) by providing false statements to client and ODC? | ODC: Dirks knowingly misrepresented when he learned of dismissal and lied to client about case status. | Dirks: Initially asserted he did not see the ruling; later admitted he received it. | Yes — false statements established; aggravating factor. |
| What is the baseline sanction for combined dishonesty and failure to communicate? | ODC: Suspension is appropriate given potential for serious harm and dishonesty. | Dirks: Mitigating factors (no prior record, remorse) support lesser sanction. | Baseline is suspension; 60-day suspension imposed considering aggravators/mitigators. |
| Are prior disciplinary precedents supportive of a 60-day suspension? | ODC: Analogous cases of dishonesty or failure to protect client rights warranted 60-day suspensions. | Dirks: Mitigation may counsel for leniency. | Court relied on precedents and imposed 60-day suspension. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re: Bordelon, 894 So. 2d 315 (La. 2005) (sixty-day suspension for attorney whose sole misconduct was false statements to disciplinary counsel)
- In re: Bruscato, 743 So. 2d 645 (La. 1999) (sixty-day suspension where attorney failed to preserve client’s claim and did not inform client of prescription issue)
- In re: Banks, 18 So. 3d 57 (La. 2009) (standard for appellate review of disciplinary factual findings)