Preview:

05/02/03 "See News Release 032 for any concurrences and/or dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 03-B-0910 IN RE: HARRY E. CANTRELL, JR. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM
This matter arises from a petition for consent discipline filed by respondent, Harry E. Cantrell, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana. For his misconduct, respondent proposed that he be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day, fully deferred, subject to an eighteen-month period of supervised probation with conditions. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") concurred in respondent's petition, and the disciplinary board recommended the proposed discipline be accepted.

UNDERLYING FACTS The Defillo Matter In December 1998, Cheryl Defillo filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Ms. Defillo alleged that she retained respondent to represent her in a claim for workers' compensation benefits and Social Security disability benefits arising from a 1989 workplace accident, and in a personal injury matter stemming from a 1993 automobile accident. The workers' compensation matter went to trial and an adverse judgment was rendered against Ms. Defillo. Respondent appealed the judgment, but the appeal was not timely filed and it was ultimately dismissed by the court of appeal. Respondent failed to advise his client concerning the status of her

case, and he failed to promptly advise her that she was entitled to seek independent counsel with respect to his failure to file the appeal timely. Ms. Defillo initially represented herself in the Social Security matter. Following a hearing, an administrative law judge denied Ms. Defillo's claim for Social Security disability benefits. Thereafter, Ms. Defillo alleges that she requested respondent's assistance in appealing the adverse ruling. Respondent admits making a few telephone calls on Ms. Defillo's behalf, but contends that he never agreed to handle the Social Security matter. In any event, no appeal was timely filed in Ms. Defillo's Social Security case.1 Finally, at some point during Ms. Defillo's personal injury litigation, the defendant insurance company became insolvent. After this fact was brought to respondent's attention, he delayed in filing a claim with LIGA on his client's behalf. Eventually, after a claim was filed, respondent failed to track its progress and to keep Ms. Defillo informed about the status of the matter.

The Knightshead Matter Murphy Knightshead retained respondent to represent him in a tort suit arising from a 1991 workplace fistfight, and in a personal injury matter stemming from a 1994 automobile accident. In the tort matter, respondent filed a petition alleging that Mr. Knightshead's former employer, Avondale Industries, was liable for the intentional tort of one of its employees, with whom Mr. Knightshead had been involved in a fistfight. However, respondent apparently took no further action in the case, and it was ultimately dismissed.
Respondent has suggested that any appeal of either the adverse Social Security ruling or the adverse workers' compensation ruling would not have been successful on the merits, given that both the administrative law judge and the workers' compensation hearing officer had found Ms. Defillo and her treating physician lacking in credibility. While respondent's assessment may be correct, the weakness of Ms. Defillo's case does not excuse his misconduct. 2
1

In the personal injury matter, respondent erroneously filed suit in an improper venue. After the suit was transferred to the proper venue, the defendants filed an exception of prescription and the case was dismissed. While respondent's appeal of the judgment of dismissal was pending, Mr. Knightshead filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC, alleging that he was unaware of the status of the case. One month later, the court of appeal affirmed the dismissal of the tort suit on grounds of prescription. Respondent failed to promptly advise Mr. Knightshead that he was entitled to seek independent counsel with respect to his failure to handle the case properly.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS Petition for Consent Discipline The ODC conducted an investigation into the complaints filed against respondent. Prior to the institution of formal charges, respondent filed a petition for consent discipline, admitting his conduct violated the following provisions of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3 (failure to act with diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.8 (prohibited transactions between a lawyer and a client), and 3.2 (failure to expedite litigation). For his misconduct, respondent proposed that he be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day, fully deferred, subject to an eighteen-month period of supervised probation with the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. Respondent shall respond to all reasonable requests of his probation monitor. Respondent shall refrain from any violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent shall establish and maintain an effective calendaring system and method to communicate with clients and shall obtain
3

the assistance of the Louisiana State Bar Association's Loss Prevention Counsel, the LSBA's Practice Assistance Counsel, and his probation monitor in the creation of a proper law office management program. 4. Respondent shall enroll in and attend one full day of Ethics School administered by the LSBA's Practice Assistance and Improvement Committee. Respondent shall maintain current in the law during his period of probation by satisfying all annual MCLE requirements in a timely fashion, and he shall timely pay his bar dues and the disciplinary assessment. Respondent agrees that any violation of any terms or conditions set forth shall result in a summary revocation of probation. Respondent is responsible for all ordinary costs of the disciplinary process and consent proceedings, consistent with Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download IN RE: HARRY E. CANTRELL, JR..pdf

Louisiana Law