Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Louisiana » Louisiana Supreme Court » 2002 » 2002-B-1377 IN RE: PAMELA VINEY MATHEWS
2002-B-1377 IN RE: PAMELA VINEY MATHEWS
State: Louisiana
Court: Supreme Court
Docket No: 2002-B-1377
Case Date: 01/01/2002
Preview:9/20/02 "See News Release 067 for any concurrences and/or dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 02-B-1377 IN RE: PAMELA VINEY MATHEWS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from one count of formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Pamela Viney Matthews, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana.

UNDERLYING FACTS In March, 1999, Brenda Eaton retained respondent to complete a partition of community property.1 At that time, Ms. Eaton paid respondent an advance fee of $1,500. Ms. Eaton had no further contact with respondent until August, 2000, when she received a written request from respondent requesting payment of $36.30 in court costs. Ms. Eaton paid this amount to respondent, and respondent had the partition matter set for hearing on November 6, 2000. Thereafter, Ms. Eaton made several attempts to contact respondent for information about the status of her case, but was unsuccessful.2 Respondent failed to appear for the November 6, 2000 hearing. On November 16, 2000, Ms. Eaton learned that respondent's office telephone was disconnected and her office was closed.

The partition of the acquets and gains had already been heard by the district court. Ms. Eaton's previous attorney had entered into a stipulation with Ms. Eaton's former husband regarding several assets, including her former husband's retirement plan, which was conveyed to him in its entirety under the stipulation. After Ms. Eaton hired respondent, respondent filed pleadings asserting that Ms. Eaton was entitled to a share of the retirement benefits. Ms. Eaton made several appointments to speak with respondent, but respondent canceled each appointment.
2

1

On November 30, 2000, Ms. Eaton filed a complaint with the ODC. The ODC forwarded a copy of this complaint to respondent, but it was returned unclaimed. The ODC then personally served respondent with a subpoena compelling her to appear before the ODC for deposition. Respondent failed to appear.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS Formal Charges After investigation, the ODC filed one count of formal charges. The charges alleged respondent's actions violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence); 1.4 (failure to communicate with client); 1.5(f)(6) (failure to refund unearned fee); 1.16(d) (failure to protect client interests upon termination of representation; 3.2 (failure to expedite litigation); 3.4 (failure to obey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation); 8.4(a) (violation of Rules of Professional Conduct); 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or

misrepresentation); 8.4(g) (failure to cooperate with the ODC). Respondent failed to file an answer. Accordingly, the matter was submitted to the hearing committee on documentary evidence only.

Recommendation of the Hearing Committee The hearing committee determined the ODC proved the formal charges by clear and convincing evidence. In determining an appropriate sanction, the committee looked to In re: Bivins, 98-2513 (La. 12/11/98), 724 So. 2d 198, in which this court suspended an attorney for one year and one day for failing to communicate, failing to account for and refund unearned fees and for abandoning her law practice. The committee determined that respondent's conduct in the instant case was more
2

detrimental to the interests of the client than the conduct at issue in Bivins and warranted a longer suspension. Accordingly, the committee recommended respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of eighteen months.

Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board The disciplinary board determined the record supported the finding that respondent failed to use reasonable diligence, failed to communicate with Ms. Eaton, failed to appear at trial, failed to return an unearned fee or provide an accounting, failed to properly terminate her representation of Ms. Eaton and protect her interests and failed to cooperate with the ODC. However, the board found no evidence that respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, and therefore declined to find a violation of Rule 8.4(c). Citing Standard 4.42(a), Standard 6.22 and Standard 7.2 of the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions,3 the disciplinary board found the baseline sanction for respondent's misconduct was a suspension. As aggravating factors, it found respondent had a prior disciplinary history, 4 had committed multiple offenses and engaged in bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary process by intentionally failing to cooperate with the ODC. Additionally, it found respondent's client was a vulnerable victim and that respondent had substantial experience in the practice of

Standard 4.42(a) provides that suspension is appropriate when the lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for the client and causes injury or potential injury. Standard 6.22 provides suspension is appropriate when the lawyer violates a court order and causes injury or potential injury to a client. Standard 7.2 provides suspension is appropriate when the lawyer violates a professional duty and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public or the legal system. Respondent has been admonished on two occasions for conduct similar to that in the instant case. In 00-ADB-002, she was admonished for lack of diligence, failure to expedite litigation and failure to cooperate with the ODC. In 97-ADB-043, she was admonished for failure to cooperate with the ODC. In addition, she has been ineligible to practice law since September 4, 2001, based on her failure to pay her bar dues and disciplinary assessment.
3
4

3

law, having been admitted to the bar in 1991. The board determined the record did not support any mitigating factors. Like the committee, the board agreed that this case was more egregious than Bivens. In support, it noted the instant case involved additional misconduct, including failure to expedite litigation, failure to appear on the day of trial and failure to cooperate. Moreover, it pointed out that unlike Bivens, there were no mitigating factors in the instant case. Under these circumstances, the board recommended respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of eighteen months. Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection in this court to the recommendation of the disciplinary board.

DISCUSSION Bar disciplinary matters come within the original jurisdiction of this court. La. Const. art. V,
Download 2002-B-1377 IN RE: PAMELA VINEY MATHEWS.pdf

Louisiana Law

Louisiana State Laws
Louisiana Tax
Louisiana Labor Laws
Louisiana Agencies
    > Louisiana DMV

Comments

Tips