Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Second Disbarment May Be Permanent

The Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board has recommended the permanent disbarment of a lawyer who had been disbarred in 1986 and readmitted in 1999. In addition to findings of ethical violations in a number of client-related matters, the board found that the attorney had engaged in criminal conduct that adversely reflected on his fitness to practice. The findings related to the theft of shoes from Wal-mart. The attorney was arrested and pled no contest to the criminal charges. He attempted to recant his plea in the bar proceedings, contending that he had pled to conclude the matter quickly. The board did not buy the explanation. (Mike Frisch)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2009/06/second-disbarment-may-be-permanent.html

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef011570290d2c970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Second Disbarment May Be Permanent:

Comments

Baby needs a new pair of shoes! Pretty sad when one gets disbarred over a $7 pair of shoes. Hmm .. perhaps this lawyer should have partnered with the fellow Louisiana lawyer above? But alas, he didn’t buy baby many pairs of shoes with his $360,000 either.

Actually, I found count V the more interesting count. It isn’t many lawyers who attempt to seduce and sleep with their potential clients during the initial visit. While I can certainly see a Rule 1.7 violation in such an intercourse, I have a harder time accepting the Committee’s reasoning in finding a violation of Rule 8.4(c):

>>> Rule 8.4(c) states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Here, Respondent attempted to use the trust of the lawyer/client relationship to fulfill his personal desires. The very nature of this conduct involves deceit. Therefore, the Committee properly concluded that Respondent violated Rule 8.4(c). <<<

Does the Committee really mean to say that seduction necessarily involves deceit? I am sure that this would come as news to many.

Also, what trust? Indeed, what lawyer/client relationship? She didn’t hire him – apparently because she found him to be a scoundrel.

Stephen

Posted by: FixedWing | Jun 17, 2009 6:00:52 PM

Post a comment