Preview:

01/16/2009 "See News Release 002 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 08-B-2295 IN RE: WILLIAM J. DELSA

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, William J. Delsa, 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 three counts of misconduct. The charges were considered by separate hearing committees, then consolidated by order of the disciplinary board. The board then filed in this court a single recommendation of discipline encompassing both sets of formal charges.

07-DB-033 The Ratliff Matter In 1994, Catherine Ratliff hired respondent to represent her in a medical malpractice matter. In June 2000, respondent filed a petition for damages against Ms. Ratliff's treating physician and three other defendants. In October 2000, two of the defendants were dismissed from the lawsuit. In August 2004, respondent wrote to Ms. Ratliff indicating that the defendants offered to settle the matter for $445,000. However, respondent encouraged Ms.

Ratliff not to accept the offer because he thought the defendants would increase the offer. In 2005, respondent provided Ms. Ratliff with a copy of a judgment dated March 5, 2005, which indicated that he had obtained a compromise settlement from the defendants in the amount of $595,000. Further investigation by the ODC revealed several irregularities with the judgment, including the following: 1) the judgment in the court record was a copy and not an original document; 2) the judgment was signed by a judge from a different division than that identified in the judgment; 3) the judgment was signed on March 5, 2005, which was a Saturday; 4) the document was purportedly scanned into the court record months before the purported February 25, 2005 hearing date; and 5) the judgment lists all of the defendants, including the two who were previously dismissed. Additionally, all of the opposing counsel confirmed that no compromise settlement was ever reached in Ms. Ratliff's case. In fact, none of the opposing counsel ever entered into settlement negotiations with respondent. Furthermore, neither the docket for the judge who purportedly signed the judgment nor the docket for the division to which Ms. Ratliff's case was actually assigned indicated that the compromise settlement was presented in open court as indicated in the judgment. Finally, the judge who purportedly signed the judgment had no record that she or her staff were ever involved in the matter. In December 2005, Ms. Ratliff filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. In her complaint, she indicated that, during the twelve years of the

representation, she had difficulty contacting respondent and difficulty receiving information from him. She also indicated that she had not received any of the money awarded to her in the March 2005 judgment. Respondent failed to respond to the complaint, despite numerous attempts by the ODC to obtain his response.

2

Formal Charges In January 2007, the ODC filed one count of formal charges against respondent, alleging that his conduct in the Ratliff matter violated Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent was served with the formal charges via certified mail but failed to answer. Accordingly, the factual allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download 2008-B-2295 IN RE: WILLIAM J. DELSA.pdf

Louisiana Law