Preview:

05/30/2008 "See News Release 037 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 07-B-2060 IN RE: PHILLIP L. ALLEMAN

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

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

UNDERLYING FACTS Count I Respondent failed to pay his Louisiana Bar dues and disciplinary assessment and failed to file his attorney registration statement for the 2005 - 2006 Bar fiscal year. Consequently, he has been ineligible to practice law since October 31, 2005.1 On October 22, 2005, respondent informed attorney S. Stephen Spring, II2 that he was moving out of state and would no longer be practicing law. On October 29, 2005, respondent mailed his office keys to Mr. Spring's office address. He failed to notify his clients that he would no longer be practicing law and was unavailable to his clients, opposing counsel, and the courts. The ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to

Respondent has also been ineligible to practice law since September 29, 2007 due to his failure to complete his mandatory continuing legal education requirements. Mr. Spring is an attorney in Gonzales, Louisiana. On November 8, 2005, he was appointed Curator Ad Hoc to provide aid and assistance to respondent's former clients.
2

1

communicate with a client), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the representation), 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count II Following respondent's abandonment of his law practice, nineteen clients filed complaints against him with the ODC.3 Respondent failed to respond to the

complaints and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. The ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated Rules 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation) and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count III The following domestic relations clients paid respondent advanced fees and court costs: Earl Badon paid $900 on May 2, 2005; Tina Armand paid $500 on July 26, 2005; Nicole Guillory paid $350 on September 26, 2005; Sue McNeely paid $1,000 on September 29, 2005; Candy Sanders paid a total of $2,500 on October 2 and 4, 2005; and Willie Tate, Jr. paid $2,220 on October 16, 2005. Respondent failed to perform any significant work on behalf of these clients. He also misled them regarding the status of their cases or what work he would perform for them. Finally, he failed to refund unearned fees and unused court costs.

The complainants were Darius Vohsberg, Ellen Brown, Tammy Wroten, Steven Denmark, Wayne Courville, Gary and Ashley Babin, Donna Clark, Earl Badon, Laura Daniel, Jack Cooper, Tina Armand, Warren and Ruth Schulingkamp, Jeff Ventura, Shawn Ingle, Nicole Guillory, Sue McNeely, Candy Sanders, Michael Smith, Jr., and Willie Tate, Jr. 2

3

The ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15 (safekeeping property of clients or third parties), 1.16(d), 8.4(a), 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count IV The following bankruptcy clients paid respondent advanced fees and court costs: Gary and Ashley Babin paid $704 in April 2005; Donna Clark paid $754 on April 22, 2005; Laura Daniel paid $784 between June 24 and July 8, 2005; Warren and Ruth Schulingkamp paid $1,244 on July 27, 2005; Jeff Ventura paid $734 on September 9, 2005; and Michael Smith, Jr. paid $734 on October 10, 2005. Respondent failed to perform any significant work on behalf of these clients, failing to properly file and pursue their bankruptcy cases. He also misled them regarding the status of their cases or what work he would perform for them. Finally, he failed to refund unearned fees and unused court costs. The ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 1.16(d), 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count V The following clients also paid respondent advanced fees and court costs: Wayne and Wanda Courville paid $1,500 in January/February 2005 for a damages case; Charity Avery paid $2,700 in January/February 2005 for Anthony Talbot's representation; Zenita Taullie paid $1,000 on July 21, 2005 for Jack Cooper's representation in an eviction case; Zenita Taullie paid $300 on September 12, 2005 for preparation of Jack Cooper's last will and testament; and Shawn Ingle paid $220 in court costs on September 12, 2005 for a property appraisal dispute case.
3

Respondent failed to perform any significant work on behalf of these clients, failing to diligently and promptly pursue their legal matters. He also misled them regarding the status of their cases or what work he would perform for them. Finally, he failed to refund unearned fees and unused court costs. The ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 1.16(d), 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count VI Tammy Wroten paid respondent $600 in advanced fees in a domestic relations case. Respondent filed a motion to enroll in Ms. Wroten's case, which motion was granted on December 8, 2004. On January 12, 2005, respondent filed a motion and application to proceed in forma pauperis in Ms. Wroten's case. The motion and application contained false information, and Ms. Wroten neither assisted in the preparation nor signed the documents. Furthermore, respondent notarized Ms. Wroten's forged signature on the documents. Respondent failed to perform any significant work in Ms. Wroten's case and misled her regarding the status. He also failed to refund the unearned fees. The ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count VII In 2004, Steven Denmark retained respondent to collect a judgment on his behalf in a case captioned Denmark v. Washington, No. 0207-5512 in Baton Rouge City Court. Respondent obtained a garnishment order against the defendant in October 2004. By January 31, 2005, respondent had collected $1,349.75 pursuant to the garnishment. However, he failed to notify Mr. Denmark of the funds, failed to
4

account for the funds, and failed to forward any of the funds to Mr. Denmark. He also failed to return Mr. Denmark's telephone calls. The ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 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-2060 IN RE: PHILLIP L. ALLEMAN.pdf

Louisiana Law