Preview:

04/24/2006 "See News Release 022 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 06-B-0172 IN RE: ANNE T. TURISSINI

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

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

PRIOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY Before we address the current charges, we find it helpful to review respondent's prior disciplinary history. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana in 1985. In June 1995, this court suspended respondent for one year and one day, fully deferred, subject to a two-year period of probation with conditions, stemming from her failure to communicate with a client, failure to return the client's file upon the termination of the representation, and failure to cooperate with the ODC in its disciplinary investigation. In re: Turissini, 95-0735 (La. 6/2/95), 655 So. 2d 327 ("Turissini I"). In 2003, this court considered a proceeding involving three consolidated sets of formal charges alleging that respondent neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with her clients, failed to refund unearned fees or to place disputed fees in trust, failed to protect a client's interest upon termination of the representation, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in several disciplinary investigations. After considering the record, this court suspended respondent from

the practice of law for three years. In re: Turissini, 03-0549, 03-0550, 03-0551 (La. 6/6/03), 849 So. 2d 491 ("Turissini II"). Respondent has not yet served the entirety of the suspension imposed in Turissini II; accordingly, she remains suspended from the practice of law at this time.

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The ODC filed two sets of formal charges against respondent. The first set, bearing the disciplinary board's docket number 03-DB-020, was filed on April 3, 2003 and consists of one count of misconduct. The second set, bearing the disciplinary board's docket number 04-DB-034, was filed on March 30, 2004 and likewise consists of one count of misconduct. The formal charges were considered by separate hearing committees, then consolidated by order of the disciplinary board on January 18, 2005. On January 24, 2006, the disciplinary board filed in this court a single recommendation of discipline encompassing both sets of formal charges.

03-DB-020 Respondent represented Ernest Elias in a criminal case. After the

representation was concluded, Mr. Elias asked respondent to handle a wrongful death claim on his behalf. Respondent filed a petition for damages in October 2001, but thereafter she failed to communicate with Mr. Elias and did nothing to move the case forward. In June 2002, Mr. Elias filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC, asserting that he had been unable to reach respondent and that she would not return his file. In November 2002, at which time respondent was still enrolled as counsel of record, she failed to appear at a hearing on a motion to compel responses to

2

discovery in the civil case. The trial court rendered judgment ordering that the discovery be answered within twenty days, in default of which Mr. Elias' case would be dismissed with prejudice.1 A copy of Mr. Elias' complaint was delivered to respondent via certified mail received on August 15, 2002. Respondent failed to reply to the complaint,

necessitating the issuance of a subpoena compelling her to appear on February 18, 2003 and answer the complaint under oath. During her sworn statement, respondent testified that she filed the wrongful death suit on Mr. Elias' behalf in order to interrupt prescription, but from that point on she was simply "trying to find another civil attorney to take the case for me because I'm just not comfortable handling civil things alone." She maintained that Mr. Elias knew how to contact her and admitted that she had received a request from him for the return of his file. Respondent promised that she would return Mr. Elias' file to him immediately; however, it is unclear whether she subsequently did so. In its formal charges, the ODC alleges that respondent's conduct violated Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the representation), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), and 8.4(g) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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

The trial court's order also awarded the defendant attorney's fees of $500, plus costs, to be paid by respondent by November 27, 2002. It is unclear from the record whether respondent complied with the order. 3

1

and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download 2006-B-0172 IN RE: ANNE T. TURISSINI.pdf

Louisiana Law