Preview:

3/30/01 see NR #27 (Revised 4/4/01)

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 00-B-3527

IN RE: EARL A. MAXWELL

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from two counts of formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Earl A. Maxwell, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Louisiana.

UNDERLYING FACTS Count I Sometime in 1989 or 1990, Alvin Matthews hired respondent to pursue a personal injury claim arising out of an automobile accident. On December 19, 1990, respondent filed suit on behalf of his client. Subsequently, respondent failed to comply with the trial court's discovery orders and, as a result, the suit was dismissed without prejudice in April 1995. After respondent filed a motion for new trial, the trial court recalled the order of dismissal. In December 1995, the parties agreed to a settlement and the defendant forwarded a settlement check to respondent.1 Subsequently, respondent refused to communicate with his client, failed to provide his client with a settlement statement or accounting, and failed to remit the funds owed to his client, despite repeated requests.2
The letter accompanying the check stated the settlement was for $1,900. However, at the formal hearing, respondent testified the settlement was for $1,200.
2 1

The record indicates Mr. Matthews, who was incarcerated by this time, wrote to respondent no (continued...)

In 1996, Mr. Matthews filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent with the ODC. At some point, respondent offered Mr. Matthews $300 to withdraw his complaint; however, Mr. Matthews refused to accept this money. In another issue relating to the Matthews representation, respondent personally guaranteed loans made by a finance company, Oceanside Finance, to Mr. Matthews for living and related expenses during the course of the litigation. Pursuant to a written agreement between Mr. Matthews and respondent, the amount advanced was to be deducted from the client's settlement. However, respondent kept no records of the loans and was unable to ascertain the amount advanced to his client. Respondent and his client failed to satisfy their obligations under the loans. As a result, Oceanside Finance Company filed suit against respondent and his client. Finally, later investigation revealed that at some points in time during respondent's representation of Mr. Matthews, respondent was ineligible to practice law. Specifically, the record indicates that on at least six occasions between 1992 and 1996, respondent was declared ineligible to practice for failure to pay his bar dues or complete his mandatory continuing legal education requirements.

Count II After receiving Mr. Matthews' disciplinary complaint, the ODC requested a response from respondent. Respondent filed a response denying any misconduct. On October 7, 1996, the ODC directed correspondence to respondent's law office requesting additional information regarding the settlement documents and disbursement records. The correspondence was returned unclaimed. The following
2

(...continued) less than nine times and called him on numerous occasions, but to no avail. Moreover, Mr. Matthews corresponded with the clerk of court's office three months after the settlement and learned respondent still had not paid the court costs, which barred the dismissal of the civil suit. 2

month, the ODC requested the same information, but respondent failed to respond. A subpoena was issued compelling respondent's appearance and production of documents. On the scheduled date, respondent arrived two hours late, after the court reporter had left, claiming he was unaware he was to give a deposition.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS Formal Charges After investigation, the ODC filed two counts of formal charges against respondent. The first count related to respondent's conduct during his representation of Mr. Matthews; the second count related to respondent's failure to cooperate in the ODC's investigation of Mr. Matthews' complaint. As to Count I, the ODC alleged respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client, a violation of Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and failed to communicate with his client in violation of Rule 1.4. It alleged he improperly sought to settle his malpractice liability with his client, thus creating a conflict of interest in violation of Rule 1.7(b). The ODC also alleged that by advancing funds to his client through a finance company, respondent engaged in a prohibited business transaction with a client, a violation of Rule 1.8(a), and offered financial assistance to a client in connection with litigation, a violation of Rule 1.8(e). The ODC alleged respondent violated Rule 1.16(d) by failing to promptly remit funds to which his client was entitled and by failing to provide an accounting. Finally, the ODC alleged that respondent violated Rule 5.5(a) because he engaged in the practice of law while ineligible to do so, and violated Rule 8.4(d) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

3

As to Count II, relating to respondent's failure to cooperate in the investigation of the Matthews complaint, the ODC alleged respondent's conduct violated Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download 2000-B-3527 IN RE: EARL A. MAXWELL.pdf

Louisiana Law