Preview:

03/28/03 "See News Release 022 for any dissents and/or concurrences

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 03-B-0653 IN RE: J. GREGORY CAVER ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM
This matter arises from a petition for consent discipline filed by respondent, J. Gregory Caver, a currently disbarred attorney. For his misconduct, which involves engaging in the unauthorized practice of law on two occasions, respondent proposed that he be permanently disbarred. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") concurred in respondent's petition, and the disciplinary board recommended the proposed discipline be accepted.

UNDERLYING FACTS In 1997, respondent was disbarred from the practice of law for conversion of client funds. In re: Caver, 97-0823, 97-0824 (La. 5/1/97), 693 So. 2d 150. In 1999, respondent was found guilty of further professional misconduct warranting disbarment, and the court extended for an additional five years the minimum period for applying for readmission from the prior disbarment. In re: Caver, 99-0708 (La. 6/4/99), 733 So. 2d 1208. Notwithstanding these disciplinary matters, respondent has continued to engage in the practice of law.

The Lexa Matter Respondent wrote a letter to Mary Lexa, whose son was charged with a minor drug offense in Ascension Parish, advising her that he would be enrolling as counsel of record in the criminal matter and soliciting $500 in legal fees from her. On July 2,

2002, respondent appeared in open court in Ascension Parish and, on the record, requested to be enrolled as counsel for the defendant. The assistant district attorney handling the case immediately informed the court that respondent was a disbarred attorney and not licensed to practice law. Respondent was arrested and charged with engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, a violation of La. R.S. 37:213.

The Gremillion Matter Amy Gremillion paid respondent $2,500 to represent her son in connection with a criminal matter pending in Baton Rouge. Respondent was subsequently arrested and charged with engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, a violation of La. R.S. 37:213, and with theft, a felony, in violation of La. R.S. 14:67.1

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS Petition for Consent Discipline The ODC conducted an investigation into the complaints filed against respondent. Prior to the institution of formal charges, respondent filed a petition for consent discipline. In that petition, respondent admitted his conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 5.5 (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law), 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act, especially one that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness 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). For his misconduct, respondent proposed that he be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Louisiana. The ODC concurred in the petition.

According to the petition for consent discipline, all of the criminal charges against respondent are still pending. 2

1

Disciplinary Board Recommendation The disciplinary board found that by violating Rules 5.5 and 8.4(b), (c), and (d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, respondent intentionally violated duties owed to his clients, the public, the legal system, and the profession. The board concluded respondent's dishonest and criminal conduct caused damage, and that the baseline sanction is therefore disbarment. Based upon its review of the record, the board determined the aggravating factors present include respondent's prior disciplinary record,2 pattern of misconduct, and multiple offenses. In mitigation, the board recognized respondent's remorse and cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings. The board noted that respondent's conduct meets two of the guidelines for permanent disbarment set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, Appendix E, and concluded that the "most onerous form of lawyer discipline in Louisiana" is warranted in this case in light of respondent's lengthy prior disciplinary record. Accordingly, the board recommended the petition for consent discipline be accepted.

DISCUSSION Although this matter arises from a petition for consent discipline, Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download 2003-B-0653 IN RE: J. GREGORY CAVER.pdf

Louisiana Law