Thursday, January 28, 2016

"I Just Can't Help Myself"

A Louisiana Hearing Committee has recommended permanent disbarment of an attorney in a matter where an Ad Hoc Disciplinary Counsel [DCAH] was appointed after the attorney had sued Disciplinary Counsel and others.

One gets a flavor of the litigation from this snapshot

Respondent filed a pleading entitled “Motion to Dismiss All ‘Formal Charges’ on Grounds of Criminal Sociopathic Behavior, Abuse of Power, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Obstruction of Justice, and Other Misconduct by Catherine D. Kimball, Charles B. Plattsmier, Jr., and Other Corrupt Members of the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary System.”

The attorney has been serving an interim suspension since 2009 and had been the subject of federal court sanctions.

It is hard to give a full picture of his litigation approach but here's a small sample.

On March 30, 2009, Respondent confirmed his receipt by mail of the Court's order of  Interim Suspension by replying to the Court's administrator, and copying the Disciplinary Counsel Ad Hoc, that the Court was a "gutless" "bunch of pigs" and referred to Chief Justice Kimball with a sexual and offensive nickname.

On April 8, 2009, at 1:31 p.m., he sent another email to Disciplinary Counsel Ad Hoc denying the use of racially disparaging terms, yet including many such terms along with other offensive terms, in this email. Later the same day, at 4:34 p.m., he notified Disciplinary Counsel Ad Hoc that he was a "pimp", a "puppet", an "Uncle Tom", and an "OREO."

On April 14, 2009, at 6:34 p.m., Respondent sent an email to Disciplinary Counsel Ad Hoc with only a subject line using the same objectionable terms. Later, at 8:16 p.m., Respondent notified Disciplinary Counsel Ad Hoc by email that “I Just Can’t Help Myself” and then launched into a string of racially offensive and obscene terms.

On April 15, 2009, at 3.25 p.m., Respondent advised by email he had developed yet another nickname for Disciplinary Counsel Ad Hoc. This nickname was intended to be equally offensive. Later, at 5:27 p.m., Respondent offered by email to substitute a new offensive nickname for the prior offensive nickname.

On April 26, 2009, Respondent emailed Disciplinary Counsel Ad Hoc to advise him that Respondent was thinking of him and used a string of racially offensive and obscene terms to communicate his message.

On April 27, 2009, Respondent threatened by email a frivolous Civil Rights complaint against Disciplinary Counsel Ad Hoc and suggested Counsel examine similar pleadings Respondent had already filed. He also referred to opposing counsel in these other proceedings as "SCUM" and "VERMIN."

The committee found that the attorney had violated his oath of office and engaged in numerous ethics rule violations.

this Committee finds that Respondent’s actions show his egregious lack of respect for the authority of the federal courts, the Louisiana Supreme Court, and the disciplinary authorities of this State. His conduct also shows his complete disregard for both the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professionalism of this State. Such conduct will not be tolerated by this Committee. Respondent’s conduct, as well as his act of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law during his interim suspension, mandates this Committee to recommend that he be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.

(Mike Frisch)

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink


Post a comment