Preview:

6/15/01

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 01-B-1296

IN RE: ARCHIE L. JEFFERSON

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM*
This matter arises from a petition for consent disbarment submitted by respondent, Archie L. Jefferson, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Louisiana but who is currently suspended from practice. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") concurred in the petition, and the disciplinary board has recommended it be accepted. For the reasons that follow, we will accept the petition and disbar respondent from the practice of law in the State of Louisiana.

UNDERLYING FACTS Count I On February 19, 1993, this court rendered judgment suspending respondent from the practice of law for a period of two and one-half years. In re: Jefferson, 613 So. 2d 959 (La. 1993). He has never applied for, nor been granted, reinstatement to the practice of law.1 In December of 1995, respondent was convicted in Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans on charges of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of La. R.S. 37:213. He received a suspended six-month sentence and was placed on inactive probation for six months. Subsequently,

*

Retired Judge Robert L. Lobrano, assigned as Justice Pro Tempore, participating in this decision.

This court's judgment of February 19, 1993, suspending respondent for two and one-half years, was made retroactive to his interim suspension of December 14, 1990, making him immediately eligible for reinstatement at the time the suspension was imposed.

1

respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its disciplinary investigation of this matter.

Count II Sometime in 1993, Terrence V. Ford retained respondent to represent him in a workers' compensation matter. The representation began and continued at a time when respondent was suspended from the practice of law. Respondent settled the matter without his client's knowledge, consent, or permission and converted the funds to his own use. Subsequently, respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its disciplinary investigation of this matter.

Count III Ernest Kennedy retained respondent in 1994 to represent him in a worker's compensation matter. The representation began and continued at a time when respondent was prohibited by this court from engaging in the practice of law. Respondent settled the matter for $2,210 without his client's knowledge, consent, or permission and converted the funds to his own use. Subsequently, respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its disciplinary investigation.

Count IV Lorita Gamble retained respondent in 1996 for $1,100 to represent her in a tax matter against the City of New Orleans. The representation began and continued at a time when respondent was prohibited by this court from engaging in the practice of law. Respondent performed no legal services and failed to return the unearned fee.

2

Subsequently, respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its disciplinary investigation.

Count V On February 19, 1999, respondent was convicted in Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans of three counts of issuing worthless checks totaling $1,267. The trial court sentenced respondent as a multiple offender to one year in jail with credit for time served.

Count VI Lonnie Morris, Jr. retained respondent in 1989 to represent him in a workers' compensation matter against the East Baton Rouge School Board. Respondent settled the matter for $15,000 without his client's knowledge, consent, or permission and converted the funds to his own use.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS Formal Charges/Petition for Consent Discipline After investigation, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent.2 The charges alleged violations of the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.4(a) (failure to communicate); 1.4(b) (failure to keep client reasonably informed); 1.15 (commingling and conversion of client funds); 5.5(a) (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law); 8.4(a) (violating or attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct); 8.4(b) (commission of criminal act adversely reflecting on lawyer's honesty,

The formal charges initially included a seventh count, which alleged respondent converted settlement proceeds received by him on behalf of a client. This count was later dropped by the ODC when respondent produced evidence he had reimbursed the client for the settlement amount. 3

2

trustworthiness or fitness); 8.4(c) (conduct involving deceit, fraud and dishonesty); and 8.4(g) (failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation). Prior to the formal hearing, respondent filed the instant petition for consent discipline.3 Respondent acknowledged he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, neglected his clients' matters, issued worthless checks and failed to communicate with his clients regarding their settlements. He also admitted to conversion and commingling of clients' funds, although he claimed he did not do so intentionally. Further, respondent conceded he failed to initially cooperate with the ODC. In mitigation, respondent raised his inexperience in the practice of law, his personal and substance abuse problems, the delay in the disciplinary proceedings, his interim rehabilitation, the imposition of other penalties or sanctions, and his remorse. As a sanction, respondent proposed he be disbarred from the practice of law. The ODC filed a concurrence to the petition for consent discipline.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation Both parties waived their appearance at the formal hearing. In light of respondent's admission to the allegations of misconduct, the board concluded respondent knowingly and intentionally violated the professional rules as charged and, in doing so, breached his duties owed to his clients, the public, the legal system and to the profession. Specifically, the board pointed out there was great harm to Mr. Morris when respondent settled Mr. Morris' worker's compensation claim without consent for $15,000, and forged and converted the funds to his own use. As to the

Respondent had previously submitted a petition for consent discipline, seeking disbarment retroactive to February 19, 1993 (the day he would have been eligible for reinstatement from his prior suspension) with the condition he not seek readmission for a period of two years. The disciplinary board rejected the petition, on the ground it would violate the five-year minimal period for seeking readmission, as mandated by Rule XIX,

Download 2001-B-1296 ARCHIE L. JEFFERSON.pdf

Louisiana Law