Preview:

02/04/2011 "See News Release 008 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 10-B-2582 IN RE: ROBERT L. BARRIOS

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM*
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Robert L. Barrios, a disbarred attorney.

PRIOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY Before we address the current charges, we find it helpful to review respondent's prior disciplinary history. After being admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana in 1977, respondent's first disciplinary infraction occurred in October 1984, when he was privately reprimanded by the Committee on Professional Responsibility for neglecting a legal matter. In November 1984, respondent was privately reprimanded for neglecting a legal matter and failing to communicate with a client. In June 1989, respondent was privately reprimanded for failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation. In March 1993, he was admonished by the

disciplinary board for neglecting a legal matter, failing to communicate with a client, failing to promptly refund an unearned fee, and failing to cooperate with the ODC in an investigation. Later that year, respondent was twice admonished by the board for failing to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations.

*

Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.

In April 2006, this court suspended respondent from the practice of law for two years for engaging in a pattern of misconduct involving the neglect of legal matters, failure to communicate with clients, failure to account for and timely refund unearned fees, and failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In re: Barrios, 05-1932 (La. 4/17/06), 929 So. 2d 63 (hereinafter referred to as "Barrios I"). In November 2008, this court disbarred respondent for nearly identical misconduct. In re: Barrios, 08-1679 (La. 11/10/08), 993 So. 2d 1200 (hereinafter referred to as "Barrios II"). Respondent remains disbarred from the practice of law. Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the misconduct at issue in the present proceeding.

FORMAL CHARGES 08-DB-101 The Benoit Matter In 2001, Alice Benoit hired respondent to handle her son's divorce and child visitation and support matter. In April 2002, she paid respondent $625 to handle the property settlement portion, with $125 being deposited with the clerk of court for court costs. Respondent failed to proceed with the property settlement and failed to notify Ms. Benoit of his 2006 suspension from the practice of law. In October 2006, Ms. Benoit attempted to contact respondent to inquire about obtaining a refund of her $500 fee payment and a copy of her son's file. When she was unable to get in touch with respondent, Ms. Benoit learned he was no longer practicing law. In October 2006, Ms. Benoit filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent. Respondent failed to respond to the complaint, necessitating the issuance of a

2

subpoena for his sworn statement. Despite being personally served with the subpoena, respondent failed to appear for the sworn statement as scheduled.

09-DB-079 Count I - The Parr Matter In December 2004, Sherri Lee Parr hired respondent to handle the succession of her father. Ms. Parr paid respondent $1,725 to handle the matter, following which respondent told her that "these things take awhile." Thereafter, Ms. Parr and her sister attempted to contact respondent by telephone to no avail, and respondent never returned their calls. Ms. Parr went to respondent's office numerous times and was told by the secretary that he was either in court or unavailable. In December 2008, after reading in the local newspaper that respondent had been disbarred, Ms. Parr filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent. Respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the complaint.

Count II - The LeCompte Matter In June 2005, Donna Ledet LeCompte hired respondent to represent her in a divorce proceeding. Respondent quoted Ms. LeCompte a fee of $1,500. Ms. LeCompte paid respondent $750 towards the fee and court costs of $225. Thereafter, Ms. LeCompte met with respondent a couple of times. In July 2005, respondent filed the petition for divorce. A few months later, Ms. LeCompte received a letter from attorney William Yates, indicating he had possession of her legal file because respondent no longer practiced law and had closed his office. Thereafter, Ms. LeCompte retrieved her file from Mr. Yates and hired another attorney to complete the divorce and community property settlement. In January 2009, Ms. LeCompte

3

filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent, alleging he did not earn the entire $750 fee. Respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of Ms. LeCompte's complaint.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS In December 2008 and December 2009, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent as set forth above, alleging he 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(a) (failure to communicate with a client), 1.5(f)(5) (failure to refund an unearned fee), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the representation), and 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation). Respondent failed to answer either set of 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 2010-B-2582 IN RE: ROBERT L. BARRIOS.pdf

Louisiana Law