Preview:

03/04/2009 "See News Release 012 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 08-B-2769 IN RE: AHMAD MUHAMMAD

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Ahmad Muhammad, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently on interim suspension based upon his conviction of a serious crime. In re: Muhammad, 04-1643 (La. 7/9/04), 878 So. 2d 515.

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 1984. In October 1990, respondent received an admonition for his failure to cooperate with the ODC in a disciplinary investigation. In November 1990, respondent received a second admonition for his failure to cooperate with the ODC in a separate investigation. In September 1991, respondent pled nolo contendere to one count of felony unauthorized use of a movable arising out of his conversion of approximately $5,000 in client funds. On November 29, 1993, this court placed respondent on interim suspension based on his conviction. In re: Muhammad, 629 So. 2d 408 (La. 1993). Thereafter, this court suspended respondent from the practice of law for three years, retroactive to the date of his interim suspension, for conversion of client funds. In re:

Muhammad, 95-0515 (La. 6/2/95), 655 So. 2d 325. In 1997, respondent was reinstated to the practice of law. In re: Muhammad, 97-1335 (La. 6/30/97), 696 So. 2d 1001. Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the misconduct at issue in the present proceeding.

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The ODC filed four sets of formal charges against respondent, consisting of a total of five counts of misconduct. Three hearing committees considered the formal charges before they were consolidated by the disciplinary board, which then filed in this court a single recommendation of discipline encompassing all four sets of formal charges.

02-DB-131 The Wilson Matter Respondent represented Eugene Wilson in a criminal matter in the 13th Judicial District Court. He was cited six times for contempt of court for his failure to appear in court on October 4, 2001, October 29, 2001, November 14, 2001, November 16, 2001, November 27, 2001, and December 18, 2001. On January 4, 2002, the judge found respondent guilty of six counts of contempt of court and sentenced him to pay fines and serve time in the Evangeline Parish jail. Respondent was ordered to report to jail on January 11, 2002 to commence serving his sentence, but he failed to do so. He was also ordered to appear in court on January 11, 2002 to answer a seventh contempt of court charge for his failure to appear on January 4, 2002, but he failed to do so. Accordingly, the judge found respondent guilty of an additional instance of contempt of court, sentenced him to an additional 60 days in jail, and issued a warrant
2

for his arrest. The judge also ordered that extradition proceedings against respondent commence immediately as he was residing in Mississippi at the time.

The Gallow Matter Elrick Gallow, respondent's nephew, was charged with felony aggravated battery, armed robbery, and kidnapping, and respondent represented him in the criminal case in the 13th Judicial District Court. The victim in the case was a cousin of both respondent and Mr. Gallow, and respondent failed to disclose to Mr. Gallow that he had a close relationship with the mother of the victim. Because of this relationship, respondent refused to cross-examine the victim at the trial. Instead, on November 23, 1999, the second day of Mr. Gallow's trial, respondent convinced Mr. Gallow to plead guilty to aggravated second degree battery and second degree kidnapping and to accept a sentence of thirty years in prison. In an affidavit signed by respondent on February 15, 2000, respondent admitted that he intentionally gave Mr. Gallow incorrect advice concerning the evidence he possessed to impeach the testimony of the victim. Respondent further admitted he failed to advise Mr. Gallow that he would have a right to appeal any errors that occurred in the trial if he was convicted and billed as a habitual offender. The affidavit also indicated that Mr. Gallow pled guilty because of respondent's erroneous advice. In a sworn statement given to the ODC on October 24, 2001, respondent indicated that he agreed to represent Mr. Gallow because he did not want him to be represented by a public defender. Respondent also stated that he thought they could work out a plea bargain, but Mr. Gallow would not accept twenty-five years in prison; thus, the case went to trial. Respondent felt as if he would be abandoning his nephew if he withdrew at this point. However, he also did not like what his nephew had done to their cousin or the other criminal conduct his nephew had told him he had engaged
3

in in the past. Respondent felt Mr. Gallow should be punished, and because of his religious beliefs, respondent did not feel comfortable trying to impeach the victim's testimony. Thus, he convinced Mr. Gallow to plead guilty.

Formal Charges In December 2002, the ODC filed two counts of formal charges against respondent in 02-DB-031. In the Wilson matter, the ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated Rules 1.1(a) (failure to provide competent representation to a client), 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 3.2 (failure to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation), 3.4(c) (knowing disobedience of an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), 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. In the Gallow matter, the ODC alleged that respondent violated Rules 1.1(a), 1.2(b) (limiting the scope of the representation without a client's consent), 1.3, 1.4(b) (failure to communicate with a client), 1.7(b) (conflict of interest), 2.1 (failure to exercise independent professional judgment in representing a client), 3.3(a)(1) (a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal), 3.4(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent initially failed to answer the formal charges, and the factual allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download 2008-B-2769 IN RE: AHMAD MUHAMMAD.pdf

Louisiana Law