Preview:

01/07/05 "See News Release 001 for any concurrences and/or dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 04-B-2603 IN RE: CURTIS J. CONEY, JR.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Curtis J. Coney, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently on interim suspension.

UNDERLYING FACTS Beginning in approximately 1986 and continuing through 2002, respondent used individuals known as "runners" to solicit personal injury clients for his law practice. Respondent paid the runners approximately $500 in cash per client referred. To obtain the funds necessary to pay the runners, respondent wrote checks on his operating account payable to "cash," which his office staff negotiated at local banks. Respondent instructed his staff to cash the checks in amounts less than $10,000 per day in order to evade federal currency transaction reporting requirements. After respondent's activities became the subject of a federal investigation, his legal assistant, Kathlyn Martino, whose duty it had been to pay the runners for personal injury referrals, agreed to cooperate with the government. On April 18, 2002, Ms. Martino was served with a subpoena to appear before a federal grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Louisiana. The same day, at respondent's request, Ms. Martino met respondent at his home to discuss her grand jury appearance. During

the meeting,1 respondent repeatedly urged Ms. Martino to give false testimony to the grand jury. In particular, he instructed Ms. Martino to feign ignorance in response to any questions from the grand jury regarding the operations of his law firm, including inquiries directed to the use of runners and the structuring activity. For example, respondent told Ms. Martino to testify that "all I am is a secretary," and to say, "I don't know what you're talking about paying [for] cases or anything else." Respondent explained to Ms. Martino that if she told the grand jury the truth about his runner-based solicitation practices, "I'm gone. I'm dead. I'm going to jail." On October 31, 2002, the grand jury returned an indictment charging respondent with one count of conspiracy to structure financial transactions in the amount of $187,085, ten counts of structuring financial transactions, and one count of obstruction of justice. On May 14, 2003, respondent pleaded guilty to all twelve felony counts set forth in the indictment.2

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS: On September 10, 2003, respondent was placed on interim suspension based upon his conviction of a serious crime. In re: Coney, 03-2477 (La. 9/10/03), 855 So. 2d 285. On September 25, 2003, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging that his conduct constituted a violation of Rules 7.1(c) (accepting a referral from any person whom the lawyer knows has engaged in solicitation relating to the referred matter), 7.2(a) (improper solicitation of professional employment by a lawyer

1

Ms. Martino recorded this meeting with the assistance of agents of the IRS and the FBI.

Nothing in the record indicates whether respondent has yet been sentenced. However, as part of its plea agreement with respondent, the government had agreed to recommend to the district court that respondent be sentenced to serve thirty-three months in federal prison, followed by a period of supervised release of up to three years. 2

2

or through others acting at his request or on his behalf), 7.2(d) (a lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services), 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), and 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act reflecting adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The formal charges were served upon respondent by certified mail delivered on September 30, 2003.3 Respondent failed to answer or otherwise reply to the formal charges. Accordingly, the factual allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download 2004-B-2603 IN RE: CURTIS J. CONEY, JR..pdf

Louisiana Law