In Re Williams
52 So. 3d 864
La.2011Background
- Williams, an ineligible Louisiana attorney since 2006 for nonpayment of bar dues and disciplinary assessment, faced multiple formal charges arising from five matters involving client funds, fees, and misconduct.
- Adams matter: Williams negotiated a tax refund check for a $3,000 fee, did not promptly refund unearned fees after charges were dropped, and ceased communication with the client’s representative.
- Schween matter: Williams failed to produce documents and communicate regarding a flood claim, and did not refund the $1,500 retainer.
- Watson matter: Williams took $2,800 from Watson, did no work for her son, did not refund the unearned fee, and failed to respond to disciplinary inquiries timely.
- Barrios matter: Williams solicited a $15,000 loan from a 75-year-old client as an 'investment in his law practice,' later repaid part of the loan but remained obligated to full restitution; questions arose about conflicts of interest and supervision.
- Graham matter: Williams admitted misappropriating funds from Ms. Graham’s settlement, failing to pay medical providers, and depositing funds in his operating account rather than a trust account; he later provided evidence of some restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Williams violate client-duties in the Adams matter? | Adams | Adams | Yes; violations found for failing to promptly deliver unearned fees and related misconduct. |
| Did Williams violate client-duties and trust duties across Schween and Watson matters? | Schween and Watson | Williams | Yes; violations found for lack of diligence, poor communication, and failure to refund unearned fees. |
| Did Williams engage in a conflict of interest and improper loan solicitation with Barrios? | Barrios | Barrios | Yes; Board found a Rule 8.4(c) violation for misrepresentation in the loan solicitation; conflict issue was resolved in favor of no attorney-client relationship at the time. |
| Did Williams' cocaine possession conviction implicate the professional conduct rules? | Criminal conduct | Williams | Yes; Rule 8.4(b) satisfied by the cocaine conviction. |
| Is a three-year suspension with deferred period an appropriate sanction? | ODC | Williams | Yes; court imposed three-year suspension with eighteen months deferred, with conditions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Reis, 513 So.2d 1173 (La. 1987) (discretion in imposing discipline to protect public and integrity)
- In re Steinhardt, 883 So.2d 404 (La. 2004) (chemical dependency mitigating sanction considerations)
- In re Bertucci, 990 So.2d 1275 (La. 2008) (deferred discipline after treatment for substance abuse)
- In re Banks, 18 So.3d 57 (La. 2009) (manifest-error standard; independent review of discipline)
- In re Caulfield, 683 So.2d 714 (La. 1996) (manifest-error standard and appellate review of factual findings)
- In re Pardue, 633 So.2d 150 (La. 1994) (discipline standards and aggravating/mitigating factors)
- In re Holliday, 15 So.3d 82 (La. 2009) (treatment and LAP as mitigating factors in sanctions)
- In re Bolton, 820 So.2d 548 (La. 2002) (deference to committee findings in disciplinary matters)