Preview:

01/15/02 "See News Release 004 for any concurrences and/or dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 01-B-2022 IN RE: DONALD R. DOBBINS

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM*
This disciplinary proceeding arises from one count of formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Donald R. Dobbins, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Louisiana.

UNDERLYING FACTS Respondent represented Mona Ray LeBlanc in a worker's compensation case. Subsequently, he negotiated a settlement in the amount of $13,258.48 on behalf of his client. Respondent deposited the settlement check into his client trust account, and issued a check to Ms. LeBlanc from the trust account in the amount of $10,258.48. Approximately one month later, Ms. LeBlanc deposited respondent's check into her bank account; however, it was returned for insufficient funds. As a result, several of her personal checks were dishonored. Ms. LeBlanc attempted to contact respondent to resolve the matter, but was unable to reach him for several weeks. Eventually, respondent wired funds to Ms. LeBlanc in three separate installments over a five-day period. Ms. LeBlanc later filed a complaint with the ODC as a result of the incident.1

*

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

One year after the complaint was filed, respondent wrote Ms. LeBlanc a letter of apology and enclosed a check reimbursing her for the NSF and overdraft charges she incurred.

1

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS Formal Hearing The ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging commingling and conversion of client funds.2 Respondent filed an answer, admitting to the

misconduct, but claiming his actions stemmed from his inexperience in handling client funds, rather than dishonest motive. He acknowledged his "bookkeeping left a great deal to be desired" and that he had taken measures to rectify the problem by retaining a certified public accountant to monitor his operating and trust accounts and to advise him on all accounting matters.

Formal Hearing At the formal hearing, the ODC submitted a report from its expert witness, certified public accountant Ronald White. Mr. White testified his investigation revealed respondent used his client trust account as both an office account and a trust account. He found a portion of Ms. LeBlanc's funds were used to pay off the overdraft in the account. Thus, he determined respondent committed conversion by using a portion of the funds due to Ms. LeBlanc for his own personal purposes. However, Mr. White found there was no evidence that respondent's actions were intended to be deceptive. Respondent testified he never kept any money in his trust account, but would instead deposit the funds as he wrote checks. As a result, he always had his clients contact him prior to cashing their checks to make sure he had time to speak to

The formal charges erroneously charged respondent with violating Rules 1.5(f)(4) and 1.5(f)(6), relative to the payment of fees in advance of services. Later, the ODC brought the error to the attention of the hearing committee, advising the proper rule violations were Rules 1.15(a) (failure to keep client and third-party funds separate from the lawyer's own property) and 1.15(b) (failure to promptly deliver funds or property owed to a client or third party). 2

2

someone at the bank to guarantee their checks would be honored. He stated he never had problems in the past because his clients would generally cash their checks immediately after they received them from him.

Recommendation of the Hearing Committee The hearing committee determined respondent violated Rules 1.15(a) (failure to keep client and third-party funds separate from the lawyer's own property) and 1.15(b) (failure to promptly deliver funds or property owed to a client or third party). It concluded respondent's failure to establish proper accounting practices to manage his trust account represented a serious deficiency. In imposing sanctions, the committee recognized respondent made full restitution to Ms. LeBlanc prior to the institution of the disciplinary complaint, and found there was no evidence respondent intended to convert client funds. Citing the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee proposed that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, but that the suspension be fully deferred, subject to a one-year period of probation with conditions.3 The ODC filed an objection to the leniency of the proposed sanction.

Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board

3

The hearing committee proposed the following conditions: a. b. c. d. Respondent will remain subject to the supervision of the ODC; Respondent will provide the ODC with proof of separate client trust and operating accounts; Respondent will provide audits of said accounts quarterly or as required by the ODC; and Respondent will complete an additional ten hours of continuing legal education in law office management and ethics.

3

The disciplinary board concurred in the finding of the hearing committee that respondent violated the professional rules as charged. It noted respondent violated duties owed to his client by failing to hold Ms. LeBlanc's funds separate from his own property and failing to timely make her funds available to her due to insufficient funds in his account. The board found respondent's actions of commingling and conversion were not intentional, but that he knew or should have known that his bookkeeping methods were improper. Citing jurisprudence from this court, the board determined the baseline sanction is suspension.4 Accordingly, the board recommended

respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, with ten months deferred, subject to a one-year period of probation subject to the conditions recommended by the hearing committee. The ODC filed an objection to the leniency of the proposed sanction. Accordingly, the case was docketed for briefing and argument in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download 2001-B-2022 IN RE: DONALD R. DOBBINS.pdf

Louisiana Law