Preview:

04/02/2009 "See News Release 017 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 08-B-2829 IN RE: JOHN HOLT GAHARAN

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, John Holt Gaharan, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently inactive.

UNDERLYING FACTS In November 2003, Lloyd Plummer retained respondent to handle his Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Respondent charged Mr. Plummer $1,500, which was paid through the Chapter 13 plan. In 2004, respondent advised the Louisiana State Bar Association ("LSBA") that he wished to assume inactive status.1 On June 15, 2004, the LSBA placed respondent on inactive status. As a result, respondent was no longer eligible to practice law.2

1

See Supreme Court Rule XVIII, which provides in pertinent part as follows: Section 3. Application for Transfer to Inactive Status. A lawyer in good standing who has not retired or is not engaged in practice shall advise the Louisiana State Bar Association in writing that the lawyer desires to assume inactive status and discontinue the practice of law. Upon the filing of the notice, the Louisiana State Bar Association shall inform the Court and the lawyer shall no longer be eligible to practice law. A lawyer who is retired or on inactive status shall not be obligated to pay the annual fee imposed by Rule XIX upon active practitioners. A lawyer on inactive status shall be removed from the roll of those classified as active until and unless the lawyer requests and is granted reinstatement to the active rolls.

2

To date, respondent has not requested reinstatement to the active rolls.

However, he did not advise Mr. Plummer of this fact, nor did he file a motion to withdraw from Mr. Plummer's bankruptcy case. Thereafter, several of Mr. Plummer's creditors, including the mortgage holder for Mr. Plummer's home, began attempting to collect debts. Mr. Plummer tried to contact respondent numerous times regarding the matter, without success. According to the bankruptcy court, Mr. Plummer's case was ultimately dismissed on March 14, 2006. In February 2006, Mr. Plummer filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. In a written response to the complaint, respondent admitted that he did not file a motion to withdraw from Mr. Plummer's case, and that he did not communicate with Mr. Plummer "in such a way that he completely understood that I would be unavailable to represent him after June 15, 2004." The ODC then issued subpoenas to take respondent's sworn statement; however, respondent informed the ODC that he did not wish to cooperate any further.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS In June 2007, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging that his conduct as set forth above violated Rules 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.16(c) (failure to properly terminate the representation of a client), and 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation) 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-2829 IN RE: JOHN HOLT GAHARAN.pdf

Louisiana Law