Preview:

10/14/02 "See News Release 073 for any concurrences and/or dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 02-B-2092 IN RE: AKILAH MAWUSI ALI

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM
This attorney disciplinary proceeding arises from two sets of formal charges involving eight counts of misconduct filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Akilah Mawusi Ali (formerly known as Connie Welcome-Sadler), an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently suspended from practice.

PRIOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY Before addressing respondent's current charges, we find it helpful to review her prior disciplinary history. In addition to being admonished on two occasions by the disciplinary board,1 respondent has been disciplined by both this court and the federal courts. On April 4, 1997, respondent was suspended by this court for a period of one year, with nine months deferred, followed by a two year period of supervised probation. The sanction stemmed from several instances of failing to refund unearned fees and two instances of commingling and conversion of client funds. In re: Welcome-Sadler, 97-0143 (La. 4/4/97), 691 So. 2d 676 (hereinafter referred to as Ali I).

These admonitions, imposed in 1991 and 1992, were based on respondent's failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigations.

1

Upon the expiration of the active period of respondent's suspension in Ali I, respondent was reinstated to practice and placed on probation on August 27, 1997. Subsequently, the ODC received information that respondent was not in compliance with the terms of her probation, and moved for this court to revoke her probation.2 We revoked her probation and made the two year deferred portion of her suspension executory. In re: Ali, 99-0659 (La. 3/31/99), 733 So. 2d 1183 (hereinafter referred to as Ali II). On May 9, 1997, one month after respondent was first suspended by this court in Ali I, she was disbarred from practice before the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana based on this court's imposition of discipline.3

UNDERLYING FACTS No. 00-DB-008

In November, 1997, Robert Broussard, respondent's probation monitor, wrote to the ODC maintaining "it appears that Ms. Ali is going to be quite lax about complying with the requirements of the [probation] plan." In addition to her not notifying him of her reinstatement as she promised, respondent neglected for several months to retain an accountant as ordered by the court. Subsequently, Mr. Broussard periodically reviewed some of respondent's cases and reported to the ODC several areas of concern. Although he had advised respondent to set up an effective prescription tickler system, she failed to do so despite repeated requests. Thus, some of her files had no prescription dates diaried in the file or on the central office calendar. In addition, he noted respondent did not have a client ledger accounting system or trust accounting system. He also alleged that respondent improperly handled retainers. Many of the fees were unaccounted for in the files or not deposited in the client trust account. It was certain that two retainers were deposited in respondent's general operating fund. Since it was respondent's belief that all retainers become the ownership of the attorney upon receipt, rather than when earned, Mr. Broussard requested that respondent contact the ODC for information regarding the proper handling of retainers. Respondent failed to comply. Her non-compliance with the terms of her probation attributed to the misconduct subject of the instant proceedings. While not pertinent to these proceedings, respondent was also disbarred from legal practice in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana stemming from this court's imposition of discipline, as well as her failure to maintain her mandatory attorney registration information with the federal court. In the Matter of Welcome-Sadler, (E.D. La. 1997). Additionally, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana suspended respondent from the practice of law in its jurisdiction for a period of thirty days. In re: Welcome-Sadler, (M.D. La. 1997). Although she had been eligible for earlier reinstatement, she remained suspended in the district for one year, until May 18, 1998. 2
3

2

Mudd Matter In late 1996, respondent settled a personal injury matter on behalf of her client, Henry Mudd. Upon receipt of two settlement checks totaling $10,000, respondent deposited the funds into her operating account. Later, respondent issued checks from her operating account to Mr. Mudd and his third party medical providers for their share of the proceeds. During the period in question, respondent failed to maintain a client trust account. Journet Matter In early 1997, respondent settled a personal injury case on behalf of her client, John Journet. Respondent received two settlement checks totaling $4,448.97 and deposited the funds into her operating account. While respondent issued a check from her operating account to Mr. Journet in the amount $691.98, she neglected to provide an accounting. Moreover, respondent failed to maintain a client trust account during the period in question. Phillips Matter In June, 1996, Ora Lee Phillips retained respondent and another attorney to represent Ms. Phillips' daughter in connection with a civil suit pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Ms. Phillips gave checks totaling $3,500 as advance payment for costs and expenses. Respondent deposited the funds into her client trust account, but converted the funds to her personal use. During the representation, respondent was disbarred from the practice of law by the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana and was therefore was prohibited from completing the legal matter for her client. While Ms. Phillips made numerous requests for a refund of the unearned fee, respondent has only made partial payment in the amount of $1,000. Respondent's co-counsel concluded the legal matter at her own expense.
3

Narcisse Matter In June, 1995, Bobby Narcisse retained respondent on a contingency fee basis to represent him in connection with a discrimination matter. Mr. Narcisse paid respondent $5,000 as an advance for legal costs and expenses. Respondent filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, as well as took other legal measures on behalf of her client. After respondent was disbarred from the practice of law by the federal district court, she was prohibited from completing the legal matter. While respondent provided an untimely accounting showing she owed Mr. Narcisse $911.25, she failed to return the amount to her client.

.

No. 00-DB-122 Helaire Matter In May, 1998, Margo Helaire retained respondent for $3,500 to conduct

research and file an appeal in a state civil proceeding. However, respondent neglected to communicate with her client regarding the case. Ultimately, one year after she was retained, respondent advised Ms. Helaire that she had been suspended from the practice of law for a period of nine months when her probationary status was revoked by this court. While respondent returned her client's original file, she failed to provide an accounting or return the unearned fee. Ms. Helaire filed a complaint, which the ODC forwarded to respondent. When respondent neglected to reply to the ODC's requests for information regarding the complaint, she was subpoenaed to appear for a scheduled deposition. At the deposition, respondent testified she had done a great amount of legal research in Ms. Helaire's case. However, she admitted she was unable to produce support for her claims, alleging she was no longer in possession of her client files. Respondent

4

testified the contents of the storage unit, which included her client files, were auctioned in December, 1999 for non-payment of rent. Byers Matter In February, 1999, Dreffus Byers, Jr. retained respondent for $500 to handle numerous legal matters on his behalf. Two months later, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a period of nine months when her probationary status was revoked by this court. She neglected to notify Mr. Byers of her suspension, nor did she provide an accounting, or return Mr. Byers' original documents and the unearned fee. Mr. Byers filed a complaint with the ODC. In a sworn statement taken in connection with the ODC's investigation, respondent alleged she initially took efforts to communicate with her client, but to no avail. Broussard Matter In May, 1998, Sherry T. Broussard retained respondent for $2,825 to handle two employment matters. Subsequently, Ms. Broussard made numerous attempts to contact respondent, but to no avail. While respondent took legal action on behalf of her client, she neglected to complete the matters because she was suspended from the practice of law for a period of nine months when her probationary status was revoked by this court. Thereafter, respondent failed to provide an accounting or return the unearned fee. Ms. Broussard filed a complaint with the ODC, asserting she was harmed respondent's misconduct because she was unemployed and her husband was suffering from cancer. In a statement taken in connection with the ODC's investigation, respondent testified, prior to her suspension from practice, she had reached a partial settlement in one of the legal matters and that the defendant had placed the settlement

5

funds in an interest bearing accounting pending resolution of the remaining matters. Ms. Broussard did not dispute respondent's assertions. Robinson Matter In January, 1998, Jackie Ray Robinson, Jr. retained respondent for $7,500 to represent him in a federal discrimination case. Unbeknownst to respondent, at the time she accepted the case, she had been disbarred from engaging in the practice of law in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, the federal district where Mr. Robinson's case was pending. Upon learning of her ineligibility, respondent associated other counsel to assist in the matter. However, the attorney withdrew because he was unable to obtain information from or communicate with respondent. Mr. Robinson, who was unaware of respondent's ineligibility to practice, continued to write to respondent from July, 1998 to September, 1999 seeking information on the status of his case and reasons for her failure to enroll as counsel. Respondent failed to respond to the correspondence. Mr. Robinson filed a complaint with the ODC, which the ODC forwarded to respondent. When respondent neglected to reply, a subpoena was issued for her appearance at a scheduled deposition. At the deposition, respondent testified she had been unaware she was disbarred from practice in the federal court, allegedly because she did not receive notice. Robertson Matter In December, 1996, Pearl Robertson retained respondent for $5,000 to institute a civil rights suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against the City of Jeanerette. Upon learning she was barred from engaging in the practice of law in the federal judicial district where the case was pending, respondent gave the case to Joshua Frank, a Lafayette attorney, for completion without her client's knowledge or consent. After Mr. Frank settled the
6

case for $3,000, Ms. Robertson notified the defendant he was not authorized to act as her attorney. Although respondent promised to return the entire $5,000 fee by a certain date, she neglected to do so. Ms. Robertson filed a complaint, which the ODC forwarded to respondent. When respondent failed to reply to the ODC's requests for information regarding the complaint, the ODC issued a subpoena compelling her appearance at a scheduled deposition. At the deposition, respondent testified that her client was advised she gave the case to Mr. Frank, although respondent did not have anything in writing to support this assertion. Moreover, respondent was unable to recall whether she had ever advised Ms. Robertson that she was barred from practicing law in the federal judicial district.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS Formal Charges The ODC filed three counts of formal charges in case no. 00-DB-008 alleging respondent's actions violated Rules 1.5(f) (failure to account for fees, failure to refund unearned fees and failure to place disputed fees in trust), 1.15 (commingling and conversion of client funds and failure to maintain an IOLTA client trust account and accurate financial records), 1.16(d) (failure to protect client interests upon termination of representation), 8.4(a) (violating or attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving deceit, dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation) and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent filed an answer to the formal charges essentially denying any intentional misconduct on her part. A formal hearing was conducted and respondent failed to appear.

7

Several months later, the ODC filed a second set of formal charges, consisting of six counts of misconduct, against respondent in case no. 00-DB-122. The charges allege violations of Rules 1.3 (incompetence), 1.4 (failure to communicate), 1.5(f) (failure to account for fees, failure to refund unearned fees and failure to place disputed fees in trust), 1.16(d) (failure to protect client interests upon termination of representation), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), 8.4(a) (violating or attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct), 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 8.4(g) (failure to cooperate with the ODC) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent failed to respond to the formal charges, and the charges were admitted pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download 2002-B-2092 IN RE: AKILAH M. ALI.pdf

Louisiana Law