Preview:

2/21/01

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 00-B-2765 IN RE: JOHNNIE A. JONES, JR.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM*
This matter arises from one count of formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Johnnie A. Jones, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Louisiana.

UNDERLYING FACTS In February 1997, Hannah Denise Lingo contacted respondent with regard to instituting divorce and custody proceedings on her behalf on a pro bono basis. No written contract was signed between the parties, but Ms. Lingo later testified that respondent agreed to proceed with the case "when he had the time." However, respondent took no action in the case. In June 1997, Ms. Lingo traveled with her boyfriend, a professional truck driver, to California. Prior to and during the trip, Ms. Lingo attempted to contact respondent weekly to discuss the status of her case. According to Ms. Lingo, she was unable to speak with respondent and he failed to return her telephone calls. Upon returning to Louisiana in August 1997, Ms. Lingo visited respondent's office. At that time, Ms. Lingo paid respondent $750 to handle the uncontested divorce and custody proceeding, in the belief that respondent would take action in the matter if she were a paying client. Two weeks later, Ms. Lingo inquired about the

*

James C. Gulotta, Justice Pro Tempore, sitting for Associate Justice Harry T. Lemmon.

status of her case. Respondent advised her that the divorce petition had been filed and was "on the judge's desk." In fact, respondent had not filed the petition for divorce as he represented to Ms. Lingo, and did not file the petition until October 8, 1997. Thereafter, Ms. Lingo continued to call respondent almost daily to discuss the status of her case. Respondent advised her the matter was still pending before the court. In March 1998, Ms. Lingo contacted the clerk of court's office directly regarding the delay in the disposition of her case. She learned at this time that her husband had filed an answer six months earlier on October 30, 1997, and that the court had been waiting for her attorney to file a rule to show cause requesting a hearing in the matter. After obtaining this information, Ms. Lingo terminated respondent's services. On March 16, 1998, she retained other counsel and, the following day, was granted a court hearing where she was later awarded custody of her minor child. The following month, the divorce was granted.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS Formal Charges Ms. Lingo filed a complaint with the ODC. After investigation, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent alleging several violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including violations of Rule 1.3 (neglect of a legal matter) and Rule 1.4 (failure to keep a client reasonably informed).1 Respondent filed an answer denying any misconduct. Accordingly, the matter was scheduled for a formal hearing before the hearing committee.

1

The formal charges also alleged violations of several rules relating to the accounting and refund

of fees. 2

Recommendation of the Hearing Committee At the hearing, Ms. Lingo, respondent, and several other witnesses testified. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing committee filed its written recommendation with the disciplinary board, finding clear and convincing evidence of violations of Rule 1.3 and Rule 1.4. The committee also concluded respondent failed to place Ms. Lingo's $750 fee in trust, and failed to account for this fee or refund the unearned portion of the fee at termination of representation. Based on these findings, the committee recommended respondent be publicly reprimanded. It further recommended he be placed on supervised probation for a period of six months subject to several conditions, including participation in arbitration regarding the fee.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation The disciplinary board agreed with the hearing committee's factual findings that respondent neglected Ms. Lingo's case and failed to communicate with her. The board also observed that respondent failed to make efforts to resolve the dispute over the fee as mandated by Rule 1.5(f)(6). In addressing the issue of sanctions, the board found respondent knowingly violated duties owed to his client and the profession, and that the actual injury was significant with Ms. Lingo's domestic proceedings being unnecessarily delayed for an extended period of time and the fee dispute never being resolved. Accordingly, the board proposed respondent be suspended from the practice of law for ninety days, fully deferred, followed by a one year period of probation, with the condition that respondent submit to financial auditing, fee arbitration and attend ethics school.2
2

The board recommended the following probationary conditions:
(continued...)

3

Respondent filed a timely objection in this court to the board's recommendation. Accordingly, the matter was docketed for oral argument pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download 2000-B-2765 IN RE: JOHNNIE A. JONES, JR..pdf

Louisiana Law