Preview:

02/08/02 "See News Release 010 for any concurrences and/or dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 01-B-2983 IN RE: MICHEL P. WILTY

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM
This disciplinary proceeding arises from a petition for consent discipline filed by Michel P. Wilty, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Louisiana, but currently on interim suspension. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") concurred in the petition, and the disciplinary board recommended it be accepted. For the reasons assigned, we now accept the petition for consent discipline and disbar respondent from the practice of law in this state.

UNDERLYING FACTS This proceeding involves four separate instances of misconduct. The facts are not in dispute, having been stipulated to by the parties.

Faulk Matter Jessica Lee Faulk retained respondent in April 1999 to represent her in connection with a claim for damages and injuries arising out of a defective mobile home. Ms. Faulk subsequently filed a complaint with the ODC, alleging that after being retained, respondent failed to communicate with her or take any action in the case. The ODC sent respondent a copy of the complaint by certified mail in June 2000. He failed to respond to this request and other requests for information from the ODC, requiring the ODC to issue a subpoena for his appearance.

Slay Matter Respondent represented Bill Slay in a personal injury matter. Shortly after Mr. Slay received a settlement in the case, respondent came to his home and asked Mr. Slay to loan him $2,000. The loan was made without the issuance of a promissory note, interest rate, or security. Respondent later acknowledged that the terms of the loan were "unreasonable, unfair, and not in the best interest of the client." Additionally, respondent admitted he did not advise Mr. Slay to seek review of the arrangement by outside counsel, nor did he obtain a written waiver of conflict from Mr. Slay. After Mr. Slay filed his complaint, the ODC sent notice of the complaint to respondent. Respondent failed to reply, requiring the ODC to serve him with a subpoena.

Scarlett Matter In July 1999, William Bradley Scarlett hired respondent to represent him in connection with an offshore personal injury matter. After September 1999, respondent failed to communicate with Mr. Scarlett, and made no effort to move the case along in any meaningful manner. As a result, Mr. Scarlett filed a complaint with the ODC. The ODC sent a copy of the complaint to respondent. He refused to respond, requiring the ODC to issue a subpoena compelling him to appear for a deposition. Respondent ultimately appeared and provided sworn testimony. Respondent admitted that he had taken little or no action in the prosecution of Mr. Scarlett's case. Upon review of respondent's case file in the Scarlett matter, the ODC found notice of intent by the federal court to dismiss the matter on the basis of neglect and delay. There was

2

also correspondence in the file indicating that opposing counsel had made repeated efforts to contact respondent, but was unable to do so.

Unauthorized Practice of Law In the course of investigating the Faulk, Slay, and Scarlett matters, the ODC learned that respondent had been engaging in the practice of law while he was ineligible to do so. The ODC determined respondent was declared ineligible to practice effective August 1, 1999 for failure to comply with his mandatory continuing legal education requirements. He was also declared ineligible on September 3, 1999 for failure to pay his bar dues and disciplinary assessment. In his sworn statement, respondent acknowledged that he engaged in the practice of law throughout the period of his ineligibility. The ODC also determined respondent failed to keep his registration address current on the bar rolls, as required by the rules of this court.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS Formal Charges/Petition for Consent Discipline After investigation, the ODC filed four counts of formal charges against respondent. The charges alleged respondent violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in the representation of a client); Rule 1.4(a) (failure to keep a client reasonably informed of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information); Rule 1.8(a) (knowingly entering into a business transaction with a client on terms which are inherently unfair and unreasonable); Rule 5.5(a) (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law); Rule 8.1(c) (failing to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation); Rule 8.4(a) (violating the Rules of Professional Conduct); and Rule

3

8.4(g) (failing to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation). The charges also alleged respondent violated Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download 2001-B-2983 IN RE: MICHEL P. WILTY.pdf

Louisiana Law