Preview:

03/15/02 "See News Release 020 for any concurrences and/or dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 98-B-0772 IN RE: JESSIE N. GROS, III

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM
This disciplinary proceeding arises from the filing of six counts of formal charges by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Jessie N. Gros, III.

PRIOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY At the outset, we note that respondent has been twice disbarred by this court for conduct unrelated to that at issue in the instant matter. In 1995, respondent was disbarred from the practice of law based on six counts of misconduct, which included misleading a client about the status of a matter, failing to respond to discovery resulting in the dismissal of a client's suit, and commingling and converting client funds. In re: Gros, 95-0890 (La. 9/15/95), 660 So. 2d 434. In 1997, the ODC filed additional charges against respondent for neglecting to file a suit, failing to communicate with a client, and commingling and converting client funds. We concluded this conduct warranted disbarment. As respondent was already disbarred, we extended the minimum period within which respondent could apply for readmission. In re: Gros, 97-1295 (La. 9/24/97), 699 So. 2d 384.

UNDERLYING FACTS Count 1 On September 11, 1996, respondent entered a guilty plea to two counts of theft over $100 in violation of La. R.S. 14:67. He was sentenced to three years hard labor, suspended, and placed on active probation for three years.

Counts II & III Randy P. Andras retained respondent to represent him in a community property division. In 1994, the trial court rendered a judgment in the case. In settlement of the community property, counsel for the opposing party forwarded respondent a check in the amount of $11,609.20, made payable to Mr. Andras. Respondent forged Mr. Andras' endorsement on the check and converted the funds to his own use. Despite repeated attempts, Mr. Andras was unable to recover the funds, even after retaining counsel to assist him. Subsequently, respondent failed to cooperate in the ODC's investigation of the complaint filed by Mr. Andras. Respondent also refused to appear for a scheduled deposition pursuant to a subpoena.

Count IV In 1988, Raymond Lemoine retained respondent to represent him in a bankruptcy matter, as well as a domestic relations matter. Although respondent was paid $400, he failed to perform the services for which he was retained and failed to refund the unearned fee.

Count V

2

On July 18, 1994, Kathleen Whittaker retained respondent to represent her in a garnishment case. He was paid a fee of $527, yet he performed virtually no work on the case. Respondent advised his client the garnishment matter had been resolved in court; however, court records indicated respondent failed to make any court appearances. The garnishment did not stop until Ms. Whittaker became employed by the respondent as a receptionist and was paid in cash. In October 1995, Ms. Whittaker paid respondent $182 to represent her in a child custody case. Respondent performed little or no work in the case.

Count VI On September 29, 1995, the order of this court disbarring respondent became final. In re: Gros, 95-0890 (La. 9/15/95), 660 So. 2d 434. Respondent did not inform his clients of the disbarment and he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS After investigation, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging his conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.3 (failure to act with diligence in representing a client); Rule 1.4 (failure to keep clients reasonably informed and comply with reasonable requests for information); Rule 1.15 (failure to refund and account for unearned fees); Rule 1.16(d) (failure to protect client interests upon termination of representation); Rule 8.1(b) (knowing failure to respond to a lawful demand for information in a disciplinary investigation); Rule 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation); Rule 8.4(a) (violating the Rules of Professional Conduct); Rule 8.4(b) (criminal acts reflecting adversely on a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer); Rule 8.4(c)

3

(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); Rule 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); and Rule 8.4(g) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation). Respondent failed to file an answer to the formal charges. Accordingly, the matter was submitted to the hearing committee on documentary evidence only.

Recommendation of the Hearing Committee Because respondent failed to appear and answer the formal charges, the hearing committee concluded the charges were deemed admitted pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download 1998-B-0772 IN RE: JESSIE N. GROS, III.pdf

Louisiana Law