In re Fahrenholtz
2017 La. LEXIS 767
| La. | 2017Background
- James L. Fahrenholtz, admitted 1996, was already suspended (one year and one day) from prior discipline and has not sought reinstatement.
- In April 2015 a lobbyist reported his briefcase, iPad, keyboard and case stolen from the State Capitol; police traced the iPad to respondent’s home.
- Respondent initially denied knowledge, officers observed the stolen briefcase in his kitchen, and police later found the iPad, keyboard and case concealed in a pond behind his property.
- Criminally, respondent entered a pretrial diversion and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor illegal possession of stolen things and paid $800 restitution.
- The ODC opened a disciplinary investigation; respondent repeatedly failed to cooperate and did not answer formal charges, so the factual allegations were deemed admitted.
- Hearing committee and disciplinary board found violations of Rules 8.1(c) and 8.4(a)-(c); both recommended disbarment (board majority declined permanent disbarment). The Court disbarred respondent.
Issues
| Issue | ODC's Argument | Fahrenholtz's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the disciplinary charges are proven where respondent did not answer | Deemed-admitted factual allegations and criminal conviction establish violations of Rules 8.1(c) and 8.4 | (No responsive submission; no denial) | Factual allegations deemed admitted; violation of charged rules proven. |
| Whether respondent’s criminal conduct and noncooperation warrant disbarment | Criminal conviction for possession of stolen things, intentional conduct, and failure to cooperate justify disbarment | (No submission contesting sanction) | Court adopted ABA baseline and disbarred respondent. |
| Whether permanent disbarment is appropriate under the permanent-disbarment guideline | ODC did not oppose ordinary disbarment; majority of board recommended ordinary disbarment | Dissenters (Crichton, Clark) argued guideline 9 supports permanent disbarment due to prior suspension plus new serious misconduct | Majority: permanent disbarment not warranted; ordinary disbarment imposed; two justices would impose permanent disbarment. |
| Whether aggravating/mitigating factors affect sanction | Aggravation: prior discipline, dishonest/selfish motive, multiple offenses, bad-faith obstruction, substantial experience; minimal mitigation (criminal penalties) | (No mitigating evidence presented) | Court found aggravating factors and only mitigation was imposed criminal penalties; weighed toward disbarment. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re: Fahrenholtz, 18 So.3d 751 (La. 2009) (prior discipline and failure to cooperate case involving respondent)
- In re: Banks, 18 So.3d 57 (La. 2009) (appellate review standard in disciplinary matters)
- In re: Jones, 878 So.2d 506 (La. 2004) (disbarment for intentional misconduct including misdemeanor theft)
- In re: Basile, 714 So.2d 687 (La. 1998) (disbarment for theft-related criminal conduct)
- In re: Doman, 838 So.2d 715 (La. 2003) (deemed-admitted facts do not automatically resolve legal conclusions)
- 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) (sanctioning principles depending on facts and seriousness)