In re Weber
177 So. 3d 106
| La. | 2015Background
- In 2010 Mark George Delouise retained Michael C. Weber to handle an insurance claim; an insurer issued a $3,448.78 living-expenses check payable to both Weber and Delouise. Weber deposited the funds into a non-IOLTA account and did not remit them to Delouise.
- Delouise repeatedly could not reach Weber; Weber stopped communicating and made no restitution. Delouise hired new counsel in 2012.
- Delouise filed a complaint with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) in August 2013; ODC efforts to serve or contact Weber were unsuccessful.
- ODC filed formal charges in April 2014 alleging violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct (including duties of diligence, communication, safekeeping property, timeliness of remittance, cooperation with disciplinary investigations, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Weber did not answer; the factual allegations were deemed admitted.
- The hearing committee and disciplinary board found knowing, intentional misconduct, conversion of client funds, failure to cooperate with ODC, and recommended disbarment and restitution. The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation, disbarred Weber, ordered restitution with interest, and assessed costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conversion of client funds | Weber converted Delouise’s $3,448.78 by depositing into a non-IOLTA account and failing to remit | No answer; no rebuttal or mitigating factual claims | Deemed admitted; violation proved; conversion established |
| Neglect/failure of diligence and communication | Weber neglected the matter, failed to communicate, and abandoned representation | No answer | Deemed admitted; violations of Rules 1.3 and 1.4 proven |
| Failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigation | Weber ignored ODC’s attempts to contact and refused to participate | No answer | Deemed admitted; violation of Rule 8.1(c) proven |
| Appropriate sanction | ODC sought discipline consistent with ABA standards and Hinrichs (conversion warrants severe sanction) | No response; no mitigating presentation | Court adopted board’s recommendation: disbarment, restitution to client, and assessment of costs |
Key Cases Cited
- In re: Hatfield, 2 So.3d 425 (La. 2009) (disbarment for neglect, failure to communicate, failure to refund unearned fees, and failure to cooperate with ODC)
- In re: Poirrier, 791 So.2d 94 (La. 2001) (disbarment for abandonment of practice, neglect, failure to account or refund, and failure to cooperate with ODC)
- Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, 486 So.2d 116 (La. 1986) (framework for sanctions in attorney conversion cases; disbarment justified where bad faith, extensive deprivation, or failure to make restitution exist)
- In re: Banks, 18 So.3d 57 (La. 2009) (appellate standard: court acts as trier of fact in disciplinary matters and independently reviews record)
- Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So.2d 1173 (La. 1987) (purposes of disciplinary proceedings: protect public and preserve integrity of profession)
- Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So.2d 520 (La. 1984) (discipline depends on seriousness of offenses and aggravating/mitigating factors)
- In re: Donnan, 838 So.2d 715 (La. 2003) (deemed-admitted facts relieve ODC of proving facts but not legal conclusions that do not plainly follow from admitted facts)