In re Christenberry, 132 So. 3d 388

ODC filed two sets of formal charges against Christenberry: 03-DB-052 and 05-DB-055; the matters were consolidated by order of the court on June 15, 2005.
03-DB-052 concerns Hansen, hired July 2001 for a criminal matter; respondent collected $500 and promised expungement and bond refund; he failed to appear October 4, 2001, causing bond forfeiture and ongoing charges.
Hansen filed a disciplinary complaint April 29, 2002; respondent did not respond promptly and later submitted a written response; he admitted failure to represent and later offered to petition to reopen the disposition, which he did not pursue.
05-DB-055 concerns Blake, December 2001 hire for a criminal matter; $2,500 fee; expungement was promised as part of the fee; respondent demanded additional funds for filing expungement and delayed the expungement despite Blake’s requests.
Disciplinary hearings found violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(6), 1.16(d), 8.1(c), 8.4(c), and 8.4(g) in 03-DB-052 and 1.3 and 8.4(a) in 05-DB-055; board and committees recommended suspensions with varying deferrals.
This court suspended Christenberry for one year and one day, with all but three months deferred, followed by two years of supervised probation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did respondent violate duties to clients in Hansen matter	Hansen: neglect, poor communication, nonrefunding of unearned fee, noncooperation.	Respondent argues lack of intent; partially cooperated and later remedied matters.	Yes; misconduct established; baseline suspension warranted.
Did respondent violate duties to Blake and related expungement commitment	Blake: failed to pursue expungement timely and to resolve fee dispute; delay harmed client.	Respondent eventually obtained expungement and refunded fees; some delay accepted given circumstances.	Yes; misconduct established; baseline suspension warranted.
Are aggravating and mitigating factors properly recognized in sanction	Board/ODC: aggravators including bad faith obstruction, prior record, and deception; no mitigating factors.	Mitigating factors include admission, restitution, workload complexities; not all factors present.	Aggravation present; mitigating factors limited; sanction appropriately partially deferred suspension.
Is the sanction of one year and one day with three months deferred and two years supervised probation appropriate under ABA standards	Baseline suspension appropriate; prior disciplinary action considered; aggravating factors justify suspension.	Ford guide suggests similar misconduct but no prior record; partial deferral is warranted.	Yes; sanction adopted as one year and one day with three months active, two years supervised probation.

In re: Banks, 18 So.3d 57 (La. 2009) (manifest error standard for review in bar discipline)
Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So.2d 1173 (La. 1987) (discipline serves to protect public and deter misconduct)
Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So.2d 520 (La. 1984) (baseline sanctions depend on severity and aggravating/mitigating factors)
In re: Ford, 30 So.3d 742 (La. 2010) (similar misconduct; partially deferred suspension with restitution considerations)
In re: Caulfield, 683 So.2d 714 (La. 1996) (manifest error standard for factual findings in discipline cases)
In re: Pardue, 633 So.2d 150 (La. 1994) (principles governing sanction decisions in disciplinary matters)
In re: Banks, 18 So.3d 57 (La. 2009) (discussed earlier; see Banks entry)