Preview:

04/01/2005 "See News Release 024 for any concurrences and/or dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 05-B-0135 IN RE: WALTER E. KELLER, JR.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from two counts of formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Walter E. Keller, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana.

UNDERLYING FACTS In 1989, respondent filed a worker's compensation proceeding on behalf of his client, Orelia Johnson. The case was initially set for trial in May 1993, but was continued at respondent's request, due to illness. A second trial date in November 1993 was also continued, this time without date, to allow the parties to conduct additional discovery. The suit record reveals that no further action was taken in the matter following this continuance. Accordingly, by operation of law, the case has been abandoned. Between 1993 and 2001, Ms. Johnson periodically contacted respondent requesting an update on the status of her case. Respondent assured her he would proceed with the matter but never did so. In August 2001, Ms. Johnson filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Despite receiving notice of the complaint, respondent failed to respond, necessitating the ODC to issue a subpoena to obtain his response. The day before

giving his sworn statement to the ODC in March 2002, respondent filed a motion to reset Ms. Johnson's case for trial.1 During the sworn statement, respondent indicated he did not respond to the complaint because he was dealing with a painful episode of gout. He also stated that after the case was continued without date in 1993, it "fell through a hole" because it was not tickled properly by his office staff. Respondent agreed to provide the ODC with a copy of Ms. Johnson's file and an assessment of her damages within thirty days. However, despite receiving a reminder letter from the ODC, respondent failed to provide the promised information, necessitating the issuance of a second subpoena. During the second sworn statement in April 2003, respondent informed the ODC that the clerk of court had refused to process the motion to reset the trial in Ms. Johnson's case because of his failure to pay outstanding costs totaling $818.25. Thereafter, he took no further action and did not inform Ms. Johnson of the status of her case. Furthermore, respondent informed the ODC that he had been suffering from gout during his representation of Ms. Johnson. However, he was not diagnosed with this disorder by a doctor until October 2001. Prior to that time, respondent had been self-diagnosing and self-medicating this condition, which he claimed caused episodes of considerable pain but did not affect his ability to practice law.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS Formal Charges After investigation, the ODC filed two counts of formal charges against respondent, alleging his conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 3.2 (failure to make
Although respondent attempted to reset the matter for trial, he did not pay the costs due, and the matter was not reset. Thereafter, respondent took no further action.
1

reasonable efforts to expedite litigation), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(g) failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation). Respondent failed to answer or otherwise reply to the formal charges. Accordingly, by order of the hearing committee chair dated October 6, 2003, the factual allegations contained in the formal charges were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download 2005-B-0135 IN RE: WALTER E. KELLER, JR..pdf

Louisiana Law