In re Richard

Citations: 188 So. 3d 1035; 2016 WL 1314407; 2016 La. LEXIS 778Docket: No. 2016-B-0076

Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana; April 4, 2016; Louisiana; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Formal charges have been filed against attorney Roy Joseph Richard, Jr. by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) due to a trust account overdraft of $228.43 resulting from a $250 check issued to the Acadia Parish Clerk of Court on October 30, 2013. The bank notified the ODC of the overdraft on November 4, 2013. Although Richard rectified his account balance shortly thereafter, he failed to cooperate with the ODC during the investigation. In October 2014, the ODC brought formal charges against him for violations of several Rules of Professional Conduct, including failing to safeguard client property and failing to respond to the ODC’s inquiries. Richard did not respond to the charges, leading to the acceptance of the allegations as proven. The hearing committee recommended a suspension of one year and one day without deferment. 

Following this, a mitigation hearing occurred in July 2015, where Richard provided testimony explaining the circumstances of the overdraft, attributing it to an oversight after receiving cash from a client, and acknowledged his lack of cooperation with the ODC. The committee found that Richard did not intend to defraud anyone and that he quickly corrected the overdraft, but highlighted his failure to engage with the ODC as a significant issue. The committee identified aggravating factors, including Richard’s prior disciplinary record and substantial legal experience, while noting mitigating factors such as the absence of a dishonest motive and evidence of remorse.

The committee found the respondent sincere in acknowledging his wrongful conduct after evaluating witness testimony and evidence. Emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment, the committee recommended a one-year and one-day suspension, deferring all but sixty days, followed by one year of supervised probation. Neither the respondent nor the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) objected to this recommendation. 

The disciplinary board confirmed the hearing committee's factual findings, noting that the respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by negligently converting client funds from his trust account, though no actual harm resulted and the issue was quickly resolved. However, the respondent intentionally failed to cooperate with the ODC's investigation, which led to additional resource expenditure. The board recognized both mitigating and aggravating factors, including bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary process. It recommended a suspension of one year and one day, with sixty days deferred, followed by one year of unsupervised probation, and ordered the respondent to cover the costs of the proceedings. The ODC did not object, and the respondent expressed concurrence with the recommendation, apologizing for his misconduct and lack of cooperation.

Bar disciplinary matters fall under the court's original jurisdiction, which includes independently reviewing records to confirm misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. If a lawyer does not respond to formal charges, the allegations are deemed admitted, relieving the ODC of the burden to prove them further. However, legal conclusions drawn from these facts may require additional evidence if not clearly supported by the admitted facts. The record indicated that the respondent allowed his client trust account to be overdrawn and failed to cooperate with the ODC, confirming violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Evidence of professional misconduct by the respondent necessitates a determination of an appropriate sanction. Disciplinary proceedings aim to uphold conduct standards, protect the public, maintain professional integrity, and deter future violations. The severity of the sanction is assessed based on individual case facts, including aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The respondent is found to have negligently violated duties to a client and knowingly breached obligations to the legal profession, causing potential harm to the client and actual harm to the disciplinary system. According to the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the baseline sanction for such conduct is suspension.

The disciplinary board referenced the case of In re: Duhy, where a one-year and one-day suspension was imposed on an attorney for failing to cooperate with investigations, highlighting the significance of prior disciplinary records, patterns of misconduct, and the attorney's experience. In this case, while the respondent's misconduct includes negligent conversion of client funds and a failure to cooperate with the ODC, there are more mitigating factors and fewer aggravating factors present than in Duhy. Consequently, a shorter suspension is warranted.

The respondent, Roy Joseph Richard, Jr., is therefore suspended from practicing law for one year and one day, with sixty days deferred, followed by one year of unsupervised probation, commencing upon the execution of a probation plan with the ODC. Failure to comply with probation conditions may result in the deferred suspension being enacted or additional discipline imposed. All associated costs are to be borne by the respondent, with legal interest accruing after thirty days from the judgment's finality. The respondent had previously been admonished for failing to cooperate with the ODC, and in this matter, he did not respond to communications following the admonition, indicating a repeated failure to engage appropriately with the disciplinary process.