Preview:

(03/10/2006) "See News Release 010 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 05-B-1808 IN RE: JAMES L. YATES

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, James L. Yates, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently ineligible to practice.

FORMAL CHARGES Count I - The Windham Matter In January 1998, Kerry Windham and three other inmates were injured while being transported from Dixon Correctional Institute to Baton Rouge for medical treatment. In August 1998, respondent was hired to handle the four inmates' personal injury claims. Respondent filed suit on behalf of his clients in January 1999. Thereafter, respondent took no further action, and the case was dismissed. Despite receiving notice of the dismissal, respondent failed to take any remedial action or notify his clients of same. In March 2003, Luther Windham, Kerry's father, filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC, alleging that respondent failed to communicate with him or his son regarding the case. Despite receiving notice of the complaint via certified mail, respondent failed to provide a written response to the ODC, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena to obtain his sworn statement. During the July 24, 2003

sworn statement, respondent admitted that he had neglected his clients' personal injury case. Respondent also admitted that he received the complaint filed against him and did not answer it. Respondent indicated that he was "not paying too much attention to these things like [he] used to." The ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client) and 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count II - The Thompson Matter In June 1999, Annie Laura Thompson hired respondent to represent her in an appeal of an adverse judgment against her. Ms. Thompson paid respondent $2,000 to file the appeal, plus $150 in filing fees. Thereafter, Ms. Thompson felt that respondent was neglecting her case and not communicating with her. In December 1999, she fired him before he completed and filed the appeal. Despite not completing and filing the appeal, respondent admitted that he did not refund any portion of the fee he was paid.1 He also was only able to produce a small amount of work product and a few notes regarding Ms. Thompson's case despite having possession of the file for some time. The ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated Rule 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the representation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

The fee agreement between respondent and Ms. Thompson indicated that $1,000 of the $2,000 fee would be kept in respondent's trust account to be paid out when the appeal was filed. Nevertheless, in a May 22, 2002 sworn statement, responded indicated that he had "more than earned the $2,000 fee" by doing research and looking over Ms. Thompson's case. 2

1

Following an investigation, the ODC filed two counts of formal charges against respondent. Respondent failed to answer or otherwise reply to the formal charges, which were personally served upon him on March 23, 2004. 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-1808 IN RE: JAMES L. YATES.pdf

Louisiana Law