Preview:

03/26/2010 "See News Release 022 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 09-B-2524 IN RE: MARGRETT FORD

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

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

UNDERLYING FACTS In 2005, this court considered a joint petition for consent discipline filed by respondent and the ODC, wherein the parties stipulated that respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, and failed to refund an unearned fee. The court accepted the petition for consent discipline and suspended respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, fully deferred, subject to two years of supervised probation with conditions. In re: Ford, 05-1328 (La. 6/24/05), 905 So. 2d 287. Respondent's probation commenced on February 20, 2006. In April 2006, Lesley Van paid respondent an advance deposit of $5,000 to represent him and other family members, including Gene and Georgia Rawlings, in a property dispute matter. Despite numerous attempts, neither Mr. Van nor the Rawlings were able to communicate with respondent beginning in approximately

*

Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.

June 2006.

Consequently, Mr. Rawlings, on Mr. Van's behalf, contacted

respondent's office and requested a refund of the $5,000 advance deposit. Respondent failed to respond to this request. In May 2007, Mr. Van filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent. Respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the complaint. In January 2008, the ODC filed a motion to revoke respondent's probation, based on her failure to comply with the terms of her probation, as well as her failure to cooperate in the investigation of Mr. Van's complaint.1 During her testimony at the related hearing before a panel of the disciplinary board, respondent stated that she had communicated with the Rawlings following the filing of Mr. Van's complaint when, in fact, she had not.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS In September 2008, the ODC filed one count of formal charges against respondent, alleging her conduct violated the following provisions of the 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), 1.5(f)(5) (failure to refund an unearned fee), 1.16(a)(3) (a lawyer shall withdraw from the representation of a client when the lawyer is discharged), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the representation), 3.3(a) (candor toward the tribunal), 8.1(a) (a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact in connection with

After a related hearing before a panel of the disciplinary board, the board recommended that respondent's probation be revoked and the previously deferred one-year-and-one-day suspension be made executory. However, before the court acted on the board's recommendation, the parties filed a joint motion to extend respondent's probation. Based on the parties' arguments, the court found that "a one-year extension of the period of probation imposed in respondent's previous disciplinary proceeding is appropriate under the circumstances." Accordingly, the court ordered that respondent's probation be extended for one year. In re: Ford, 08-0274 (La. 4/4/08), 978 So. 2d 287. 2

1

a disciplinary matter), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), and 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct). Respondent failed to answer 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 2009-B-2524 IN RE: MARGRETT FORD.pdf

Louisiana Law