Preview:

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

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 00-B-3532 IN RE: LEONARD O. PARKER, JR

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM
This disciplinary proceeding arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Leonard O. Parker, Jr.

PRIOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY On January 24, 1997, we disbarred respondent for commingling and conversion of client funds and failure to cooperate with ODC. In re: Parker, 96-2697 c/w 962698 (La. 1/24/97), 687 So. 2d 96 (hereinafter referred to as Parker I). This decision became final upon denial of rehearing on March 14, 1997. On January 30, 1998, we again disbarred respondent from the practice of law stemming from four counts of misconduct involving destruction of criminal evidence, neglect of legal matters, failure to refund and account for unearned fees, commingling and conversion of client funds and failure to cooperate. In re: Parker, 97-2351 (La. 1/30/98), 705 So. 2d 736 (hereinafter referred to as Parker II.)

UNDERLYING FACTS The instant matter arises from respondent's representation of Mary Wheeler. In November 1996, Ms. Wheeler was sued by an individual who alleged he had been bitten by a dog owned by her. On January 7, 1996, Ms. Wheeler retained respondent to represent her in the case. Respondent advised Ms. Wheeler his fee for representing

her in the matter would be $1,000. Ms. Wheeler paid respondent $500 towards his $1,000 fee. Other than filing an answer on Ms. Wheeler's behalf, respondent took no action in the case. Shortly thereafter, on January 24, 1997, we rendered our opinion in Parker I, disbarring respondent from the practice of law. Respondent filed an application for rehearing from that decision. While respondent's application for rehearing was pending in this court, respondent met with Ms. Wheeler and requested an additional $127 from her for filing fees in her case. He failed to advise her that he was in jeopardy of losing his license to practice law. On March 12, 1997, respondent accepted a $500 fee from Ms. Wheeler in connection with a separate legal matter involving Ms. Wheeler's granddaughter. Meanwhile, on March 14, 1997, this court denied rehearing in Parker I, and respondent's disbarment became effective. On March 17, 1997, respondent sent a letter to Ms. Wheeler indicating he was withdrawing from representing her in both the dog bite case and the matter involving her granddaughter. The letter failed to mention respondent had been disbarred from practice, and simply stated: Please contact me upon receipt of this letter to discuss the reasons for these actions and a refund of the unearned fees in this matter. I sincerely apologize for having to take this action and wish you well in your endeavors.

Thereafter, Ms. Wheeler retained other counsel, Raymond Ward, who negotiated a settlement in the dog bite case. Mr. Ward then wrote to respondent on two occasions regarding the unearned fees. When respondent failed to reply, Mr. Ward filed a suit against respondent on behalf of Ms. Wheeler in First City Court for the City of New Orleans seeking the unearned fees.

2

Mr. Ward, on Ms. Wheeler's behalf, also filed a complaint with the ODC, alleging respondent failed to account for or return the unearned fee. In support, the complaint alleged respondent failed to perform any services on behalf of Ms. Wheeler in the two legal matters in which he was retained to represent her, with the exception of the filing of a one-page answer in the dog bite case.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS After investigation, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging respondent failed to refund an unearned fee in violation of Rules 1.5(f)(6) and 1.16(d), and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.1 Respondent filed an answer to the formal charges. He maintained he performed services on behalf of his client in the dog bite case and that no fees were refundable.

Formal Hearing Respondent appeared at the hearing. Although he did not testify on his own behalf, he cross-examined the ODC's witnesses. Ms. Wheeler testified she trusted respondent since he was a reverend at a church she occasionally attended and that he never advised her at any time that he had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings or that he had been disbarred from practice. She stated that although she had paid respondent a total of $1,127 in legal fees to handle both cases, she was unaware if he had performed any legal services on her behalf. However, she did admit that they had

The formal charges originally included a second count alleging respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the Wheeler matter. However, at the formal hearing, the ODC dismissed this count. 3

1

met on a few occasions to discuss the cases, which totaled 2.75 hours. Mr. Ward's testimony corroborated that of Ms. Wheeler.

4

Hearing Committee Recommendation The hearing committee concluded respondent violated the professional rules as charged. Specifically, it found respondent failed to refund the unearned fees even after acknowledging in writing that he owed them, that he deceived his client by failing to inform her that he was the subject of disciplinary proceedings, and undertook representation of her in a new matter after the date of his disbarment. The committee noted respondent breached the duties owed to his client, the public, the legal system and the profession. Relying on the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions,2 it concluded the baseline sanction is suspension. While it found no mitigating factors to be present, the committee recognized that nine of the ten aggravating factors are present, namely, prior disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by failing to comply with the rules of the disciplinary agency, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, vulnerability of the victim, substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 1982), and indifference to making restitution. Further, the committee noted in aggravation that respondent violated Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download 2000-B-3532 IN RE: LEONARD O. PARKER, JR.pdf

Louisiana Law