Preview:

03/30/2007 "See News Release 022 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 06-B-2702 IN RE: HERSY JONES, JR.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

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

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The ODC filed two sets of formal charges against respondent, consisting of a total of four counts of misconduct.1 The two sets of formal charges were considered by separate hearing committees before being consolidated by order of the disciplinary board on January 31, 2006.

04-DB-064 The Burke Matter In April 1997, Maxine Burke, acting as the curatrix on behalf of her mother, Mittie Fields, hired respondent to handled a dispute with her former accounting firm, Wilson and Bratlie, over billing invoices in connection with the operation of her mother's restaurant, Silver Moon Barbeque. She and respondent signed a written legal services agreement whereby she agreed to pay respondent a $1,000 fee in order

Originally, 04-DB-064 consisted of three counts of misconduct. However, the ODC withdrew Count II during the formal hearing in that matter. Accordingly, no further reference is made to Count II.

1

for him to review and audit the invoices.2 In addition, respondent would receive 25% of any reduction in the billing invoices and prior payments he was able to obtain. Ms. Burke paid the $1,000 fee the same day. Soon thereafter, respondent contacted Wilson and Bratlie via letter. Wilson and Bratlie sent respondent some records at the end of April 1997. Respondent reviewed the records but never recovered any money on Ms. Burke's behalf. He also never provided her with a report of his findings. In September 1997, Ms. Burke discharged respondent.3 In June 1998, she requested that he return her file. In September 1998, she requested that he refund the $1,000 fee because she claimed he did no work on the matter. Respondent failed to return her file and failed to refund any unearned fee.

The Wafer/Smith Matter In October 1998, two sisters, Avery Wafer and Celester Smith, hired respondent to handle a property boundary dispute with their cousin. Respondent and his clients signed a retainer agreement that provided for an initial fee of $1,500, plus an additional $1,000 if litigation was necessary. Furthermore, the agreement indicated any additional work beyond the $2,500 amount would be billed at the rate of $125 per hour. Respondent traveled with his clients to view the property, reviewed the documents they provided, and spoke with a surveyor. Thereafter, he determined litigation would be necessary to resolve the matter and requested the additional $1,000 to proceed. His clients declined to pay the additional $1,000, advising respondent

The agreement indicated that respondent was acting as the attorney for Mittie Fields (Ms. Burke's mother) d/b/a Silver Moon Barbeque and Silver Moon Barbeque, Inc. Despite discharging respondent with respect to the auditing matter, Ms. Burke hired respondent to represent her in other matters. 2
3

2

they wanted to see the results of his work so far before paying him additional money. Rather than doing so, respondent informed his clients he was withdrawing from the representation and would refund any unearned fee. Although he returned his clients' file to them, respondent did not refund any of the fee and did not provide his clients with an accounting. He also failed to adequately communicate with his clients during the representation.

Formal Charges In the Burke matter, the ODC alleged that respondent violated Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.5 (failure to refund an unearned fee), and 1.16 (failure to account for a fee and return a client's file) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In the Wafer/Smith matter, the ODC alleged that respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.16 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent answered the formal charges, essentially denying the allegations of misconduct. He also asserted two affirmative defenses

Download 2006-B-2702 IN RE: HERSY JONES, JR..pdf

Louisiana Law