Preview:

05/30/03 "See News Release 039 for any concurrences and/or dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 03-B-0516 IN RE: MICHAEL F. MELTON ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from three sets of formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Michael F. Melton, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana.

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Three sets of formal charges were filed against respondent by the ODC. The first, bearing the disciplinary board's docket number 99-DB-057, was filed on June 18, 1999 and encompasses three counts of misconduct involving six clients. The second and third sets of formal charges, 00-DB-096 and 01-DB-020, were filed on August 9, 2000 and February 9, 2001, respectively, and each encompasses one count of misconduct. The three sets of formal charges were consolidated by order of the hearing committee chairman on April 2, 2001.

99-DB-057 Count I -- The Turner Matter In 1998, Tracye Turner paid respondent $10,000 to defend a first-degree murder charge pending against her husband, Isaac Turner, in Jefferson Parish. Respondent failed to appear in court for several hearings, and he failed to appear at trial. After it became clear that respondent misrepresented to the court the reasons

for his failures to appear, the trial judge appointed counsel from the Indigent Defender Board to represent Mr. Turner1 and found respondent guilty of direct contempt. Respondent was sentenced to serve ten hours in the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center, ordered to perform fourteen hours of community service work, and fined $100. In March 1999, Mrs. Turner filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. During a sworn statement given on April 22, 1999, respondent agreed to provide certain documentation in connection with the matter; however, he has failed to do so.

Count II -- The Stewart Matter In August 1997, Jeannette Stewart paid respondent $5,000 to handle an appeal in a criminal case in which respondent had represented the defendant, Anthony Stewart, at trial. Respondent failed to communicate with his client or Ms. Stewart for several months, despite their attempts to reach him by telephone and in person. Although respondent filed assignments of error in the court of appeal, the appellate brief was ultimately filed by the Louisiana Appellate Project at no charge to the defendant. When Ms. Stewart was finally able to reach respondent in March 1998, she asked him to return the fee she had paid. Respondent refused, stating that he had prepared the rough draft of the appeal (consisting of four pages) and was waiting for the briefing deadlines to be set. Respondent informed complainant that he could only be fired for "just cause," and that someone other than himself doing the work at no charge was not "just cause." Respondent never filed a brief in the matter and he failed to account for or refund the unearned portion of the fee Ms. Stewart paid.

Notwithstanding the appointment of the IDB, respondent did, in fact, represent Mr. Turner when the case was re-set for trial.
2

1

In May 1998, Ms. Stewart filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the complaint.

Count III -- The Hebert, et al. Matter Alex Hebert, Jr., Irell Warren, Sr., Lionel Johnson, Sr., and Lionel Johnson paid respondent $250 each to appeal the outcome of a union hearing and to appear on their behalf at the hearing on the appeal. Respondent signed the appeal, which was untimely filed, and he failed to appear at the hearing. Respondent later admitted that he had simply signed the appeal and had no knowledge of when it was actually filed, because the appeal had been prepared and filed by Endesha Juakali, a suspended attorney. Respondent further admitted that he was acting as a "conduit" so that the four clients could have Mr. Juakali as their lawyer. Respondent agreed to share half the $1,000 attorney's fee with Mr. Juakali, and refused to refund any fees to the clients. In December 1997, Messrs. Hebert, Warren, Johnson, Sr., and Johnson filed complaints against respondent with the ODC. Respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the complaints. The ODC alleges that respondent's conduct in the Turner, Stewart, and Hebert, et al. matters violates the following provisions of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.5(f)(6) (failure to refund an unearned fee), 3.2 (failure to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client), 3.3(a)(1) (making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal), 5.4(a) (sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer), 5.5(b) (assisting a non-lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act reflecting adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness
3

as a lawyer), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Respondent answered the formal charges and denied any intentional misconduct.

00-DB-096 The White Matter In August 1998, the family of Monte White paid respondent $7,500 to handle an appeal in a criminal case involving Mr. White. Respondent filed an appeal and an October 5, 1998 return date was set for the record. Respondent claims that he requested the transcripts of Mr. White's trial and sentencing from the court reporter in Division "H" of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court in August 1998. On February 26, 1999, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal ordered the Division "H" court reporter, Lorie Barnewold, to prepare and file the transcripts within twenty days. A second such order was issued on May 10, 1999. On June 28, 1999, Ms. Barnewold informed the court of appeal that she had left several messages for respondent that he would have to pay an up-front deposit before she would begin the transcription process; however, she had not received a response from respondent. On August 11, 1999, the court of appeal ordered respondent to pay the costs to the court reporter within fifteen days. A second such order was issued on September 20, 1999. Respondent then filed a motion for extension of time, indicating that he had been unable to locate the court reporter; however, the order was not signed by the court of appeal. On January 3, 2000, the court of appeal ordered the trial judge to take action to have the transcript prepared. On April 6, 2000, the trial judge was ordered to

4

determine whether new appeal counsel should be appointed. Following a hearing on May 19, 2000, the trial court appointed new counsel to represent Mr. White. In October 1999, Mr. White's mother, Carolyn White, filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Respondent failed to cooperate in the investigation of the complaint. The ODC alleges that respondent's conduct violates the following provisions of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3, 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.5 (failure to account for and refund an unearned fee), 3.2, 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 8.4(g) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation). The ODC further alleged that respondent failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download 2003-B-0516 IN RE: MICHAEL F. MELTON.pdf

Louisiana Law