Preview:

(12/16/2005) "See News Release 065 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 05-B-1550 IN RE: WILLIAM E. DECKER

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, William E. Decker, a suspended attorney.

DISCIPLINARY BACKGROUND Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana in 1979. He was suspended by this court for one year and one day in In re: Decker, 01-0968 (La. 6/22/01), 790 So. 2d 617 ("Decker I"), for neglecting a succession matter, failing to communicate with his client, failing to provide an accounting or refund unearned fees, and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. He has not yet sought reinstatement from this suspension.

FORMAL CHARGES In May 1999, Elizabeth Quinn hired respondent to handle her husband's succession. She paid respondent a total of $5,500 to complete the succession, but he failed to do any work on the matter. For approximately two years, Ms. Quinn repeatedly requested status updates from respondent, who advised her each time that nothing had been done.
1

In May 2001, Ms. Quinn sent respondent a certified letter requesting an accounting. Respondent failed to respond to this request or refund the unearned fees. Thereafter, Ms. Quinn filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent with the ODC. He failed to respond to the notice of the complaint. Furthermore, respondent failed to notify Ms. Quinn of his suspension imposed in Decker I. The ODC alleges that respondent's conduct violated Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.5 (fee arrangements), 1.15 (safekeeping property of clients or third parties), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation),1 and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS On November 3, 2003, the ODC filed one count of formal charges against respondent. The formal charges were served upon respondent by certified mail. 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 2005-B-1550 IN RE: WILLIAM E. DECKER.pdf

Louisiana Law