Preview:

05/24/2005 "See News Release 040 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 05-B-0337 IN RE: BRODERICK DeJEAN

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Broderick DeJean, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently on interim suspension.1

UNDERLYING FACTS The underlying facts of this matter are not in dispute, having been stipulated to by the parties. Count I In August 2000, the Ortego Chiropractic Clinic filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent, alleging that he settled claims for two of its patients in June 1998 but failed to remit payment of its medical bills. In response to the complaint, respondent admitted this and other misconduct. Specifically, respondent reported that he converted approximately $148,000 in client and third-party funds between 1998 and 2001.2 He settled claims and kept the funds for his own use without the

knowledge or consent of his clients or the third parties to whom the funds were owed.

1

In re: DeJean, 02-1806 (La. 7/19/02), 821 So. 2d 1293.

As of the date of the formal hearing in this matter, respondent had repaid all but $58,000 in restitution.

2

Additionally, respondent self-reported that he neglected the legal matters of three clients, allowing those cases to be abandoned. Thereafter, respondent stipulated that his conduct in this matter violated Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.15(a) (safekeeping property of clients or third persons), and 1.15(b) (failure to promptly deliver funds to a client or third person) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count II In March 2000, Molly Davis retained respondent to handle a workers' compensation claim. The claim was settled in May 2000. In disbursing the settlement funds, respondent withheld $1,500 to repay unearned benefits to the workers' compensation insurer. Respondent did not pay the funds to the insurer as promised, nor did he remit the $1,500 to his client. In September 2001, the insurer had Ms. Davis arrested and charged with theft of the unearned benefits. Three months later, respondent attempted to reimburse Ms. Davis $1,225.99 of the $1,500 he had withheld to repay the unearned benefits. Pursuant to her attorney's advice, Ms. Davis did not accept this payment. In September 2002, Ms. Davis, through her attorney, filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent, alleging that he mishandled her settlement funds, which resulted in her arrest. Respondent failed to respond to the complaint, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena. Respondent failed to appear in response to the subpoena. In February 2003, the Louisiana State Bar Association's Client Assistance Fund paid Ms. Davis $1,500 for her claim against respondent.

2

Respondent stipulated that his conduct in this matter violated Rules 1.15(a), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(g) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count III In 1999, Timothy Hale retained respondent to handle a personal injury matter. In August 2000, the matter was settled for $10,000. With Mr. Hale's permission, respondent endorsed the settlement check and negotiated it. However, respondent failed to disburse any funds to his client or his client's medical provider. Respondent stipulated that his conduct in this matter violated Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(b), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS Respondent was served with the formal charges and answered with a general denial. As such, the hearing committee conducted a formal hearing. During the hearing, respondent verbally stipulated to the above facts and rule violations and the ODC introduced documentary evidence in support of the formal charges. Thereafter, a second hearing was held for the sole purpose of presenting mitigating evidence. Respondent introduced documentary evidence consisting of character letters from his psychologist, doctors, colleagues, and friends in lieu of their live testimony. Respondent and his treating physician testified in person before the committee.

Hearing Committee Recommendation

3

Based on respondent's stipulations and the documentary evidence presented at the hearings, the hearing committee determined that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as stipulated to by the parties. The baseline sanction for respondent's misconduct is disbarment. The aggravating factors found by the committee include respondent's dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 1977). The mitigating factors present are absence of a prior disciplinary record, character or reputation, personal and emotional problems, and remorse. Considering all the circumstances, the committee recommended that respondent be disbarred. The ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee's recommendation.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation After reviewing this matter, the disciplinary board adopted the hearing committee's findings and determined that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as stipulated to by the parties. The board further found that respondent knowingly, if not intentionally, violated duties owed to his clients and as a professional. His misconduct caused serious harm to his clients and third-party medical providers by depriving them of their rightful funds for an extended period of time. Furthermore, Ms. Davis went through the ordeal of being arrested. Respondent also harmed the profession by failing to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation, unjustly causing delays and imposing an additional burden on the disciplinary system. Based on the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the board determined that disbarment is the baseline sanction. The board also adopted the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the committee. In determining an

4

appropriate sanction for respondent's misconduct, the board looked to prior jurisprudence involving similar conversion of client funds and found that this court has often imposed disbarment for such misconduct. Based on this reasoning, the board recommended that respondent be disbarred, retroactive to July 19, 2002, the date of his interim suspension. The board also recommended that respondent be required to make restitution to his victims and be assessed with all costs and expenses of these proceedings. Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the disciplinary board's recommendation.

DISCUSSION Bar disciplinary matters come within the original jurisdiction of this court. La. Const. art. V,

Download 2005-B-0337 IN RE: BRODERICK DEJEAN.pdf

Louisiana Law