Preview:

06/01/2007 "See News Release 035 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 07-B-0500 IN RE: MARK J. ARMATO

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

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

UNDERLYING FACTS The Griffin Matter In August 1996, Allen Griffin retained respondent to represent him in a criminal matter in which he was charged with DWI and related traffic offenses. Mr. Griffin paid respondent $2,500. In October 1996, Mr. Griffin appeared in court for trial; however, respondent could not appear because of a schedule conflict. Respondent informed Mr. Griffin that he would request a continuance of the trial date. In turn, Mr. Griffin advised respondent of his frequent work-related overseas travel and provided respondent with his work schedule so that a new trial date could be requested. When Mr. Griffin last spoke with respondent, respondent informed him that he had made six court appearances, at which Mr. Griffin failed to appear. However, respondent never advised Mr. Griffin of any further court appearances and failed to keep him advised of the status of the case. As a result, in June 2003, Mr. Griffin terminated respondent's representation and requested an accounting. Respondent

failed to respond to Mr. Griffin's letter and phone calls and never provided an accounting of the $2,500 paid by Mr. Griffin. Respondent also failed to fully cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the disciplinary complaint filed by Mr. Griffin.

The Couvillion Matter In March 2002, Albert Couvillion retained respondent to represent him in a personal injury case. Mr. Couvillion also paid respondent $1,200 to represent him in a criminal matter in which he was charged with DWI and related traffic offenses. Thereafter, Mr. Couvillion attempted to contact respondent many times, but to no avail. After several months, Mr. Couvillion finally spoke to respondent, who stated that he was moving to Tennessee. Respondent then failed to appear in court on Mr. Couvillion's behalf in February 2003. Eventually, Mr. Couvillion found another attorney to handle his legal matters and terminated respondent's representation. Respondent also failed to fully cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the disciplinary complaint filed by Mr. Couvillion.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS On March 17, 2005, the ODC filed two counts of formal charges against respondent, alleging his conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 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), and 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation).

2

Respondent was served with the formal charges via certified mail delivered on May 17, 2005. 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 2007-B-0500 IN RE: MARK J. ARMATO.pdf

Louisiana Law