Preview:

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 36 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 20th day of May, 2003, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2002-B- 2960 IN RE: MICHAEL D. CALLAHAN (Disciplinary Proceedings) Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Michael D. Callahan be adjudged of additional violations warranting disbarment for his conduct in the Rachal matter and for his conduct resulting in a conviction for misdemeanor theft. These violations shall be added to his record for consideration in the event he seeks readmission from the disbarment imposed in In re: Callahan, 00-3357 (La. 3/23/01), 782 So.2d 624. For the conduct in the Hardison matter, it is ordered that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, with three months deferred. This suspension shall commence on the date respondent is eligible to seek readmission from the disbarment imposed in In re: Callahan, 00-3357 (La. 3/23/01), 782 So.2d 624. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, Section 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court's judgment until paid.

5/20/03

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 02-B-2960 IN RE: MICHAEL D. CALLAHAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
PER CURIAM* This attorney disciplinary proceeding arises from two counts of formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Michael D. Callahan, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Louisiana.

PRIOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in 1987. Between 1996 and 1998, he engaged in misconduct unrelated to the instant proceedings involving neglect of legal matters, failure to account for and return unearned fees, failure to withdraw from representation, commingling and conversion of client and third party funds, and failure to cooperate with the ODC. As a result, respondent was placed on interim suspension on July 30, 1998. In re: Callahan, 98-1996 (La. 7/30/98), 717 So. 2d 1127. He was subsequently disbarred for this conduct. In re: Callahan, 00-3357 (La. 3/23/01), 782 So. 2d 624 ("Callahan I").

UNDERLYING FACTS Hardison Matter Prior to his interim suspension in Callahan I, respondent represented Dorothy Hardison in a worker's compensation matter. After respondent was interimly suspended on July 30, 1998, he did not withdraw from the representation of Ms.
*

Retired Judge Robert L. Lobrano sitting as Justice Ad Hoc in place of Knoll, J. recused.

Hardison as required by this court's rules nor did he advise her he could no longer represent clients. Instead, he continued to represent Ms. Hardison by engaging in ongoing settlement negotiations on her behalf for over a year after his suspension was imposed by this court. Additionally, in April, 1999, respondent associated himself with another attorney, Tommy Gipson, for purposes of attending a mediation hearing on behalf of Ms. Hardison. Respondent did not advise Mr. Gipson of his suspension.

Rachal Matter In April, 1997, Charles and JoAnn Rachal retained respondent to handle the successions of Alva Joseph Marcotte and Angeline Marcotte. Respondent advised Mr. Rachal that he would have to pay a total of $177.25 in inheritance taxes due in both succession matters. Mr. Rachal provided this amount to respondent. In fact, however, no taxes were assessed in Angeline Marcotte's succession, and $106.25 was only due relative to Alva Marcotte's succession. Respondent forwarded a check to the Louisiana Department of Revenue and Taxation in the amount of $106.25 for payment of the taxes. However, the check was returned for insufficient funds. Subsequently, respondent abandoned his client without paying the taxes or completing the legal matters. Respondent further failed to refund the funds entrusted to him by Mr. Rachal for payment of the taxes. In December, 1999, Mr. Rachal filed a complaint with the ODC. Respondent failed to comply with the ODC's request for information regarding this complaint.

Criminal Conviction On July 13, 1999, respondent entered a plea of guilty in the 12th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Avoyelles to the misdemeanor charge of theft of an
2

amount not in excess of $500, in violation of La. R.S. 14:67. The conviction stemmed from conduct at issue in Callahan I, involving respondent's intentional failure to refund an unearned legal fee to a client. Respondent was sentenced to pay a fine of $300 and $110 in costs.1 Respondent neglected to advise the ODC of his conviction as required by the rules of this court.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS After investigation, the ODC filed separate counts of formal charges against respondent.2 With respect to the Hardison matter, the ODC alleged violations of Rules 5.5(a) (unauthorized practice of law), 8.4(a) (violating the Rules of Professional Conduct), 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act adversely reflecting on a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving deceit, dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation) and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. As to the Rachal matter and the criminal conviction matter, the ODC alleged respondent's conduct violated Rules 1.3 (lack of diligence), 1.4 (failure to communicate), 1.5(f)(4) (failure to refund client funds), 1.15(b) (failure to promptly account for and deliver funds or property owed to a client or third party), 1.16(a)

When attempting to serve respondent with a subpoena in connection with the Rachal matter subject of Count I, the ODC learned respondent had been arrested in April, 2000 on three outstanding arrest warrants for theft, forgery and issuance of worthless checks. The ODC followed the criminal proceedings, part of which culminated in a bill of information for felony theft involving an amount in excess of $500. However, the charge was reduced and respondent pled guilty to misdemeanor theft of an amount of less than $500 pursuant to a plea agreement. As stated, the conviction stemmed from respondent's failure to refund unearned legal fees to a client. The client was Clinton Baudin, Jr., who gave $4,500 to respondent for payment to Mr. Baudin's wife to effect a community property settlement. Rather than delivering the funds as directed, respondent converted the funds to his own use. This professional misconduct was subject of Callahan I. The ODC filed one set of formal charges in the Hardison matter and a separate set in the Rachal and criminal conviction matters. 3
2

1

(failure to withdraw from representation of a client when representation results in professional misconduct), 1.16(d) (failure to protect client interests upon termination of representation), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), 8.3 (failure to report professional misconduct), 8.4(a) (violating the Rules of Professional Conduct), 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act adversely reflecting on a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving deceit, dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation), 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 8.4(g) (failure to cooperate with the ODC) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent did not file an answer. Accordingly, the charges were deemed admitted.

Recommendations of the Hearing Committees The hearing committee which presided over the Hardison matter recognized the formal charges were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence.3 As mitigating factors, the committee noted remorse and the absence of any dishonest or selfish motive. It recognized in aggravation respondent's prior disciplinary offenses, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses and substantial experience in the practice of law. Applying these factors to the baseline sanction of disbarment, the committee concluded disbarment is appropriate under the facts. The hearing committee which presided over the Rachal and criminal conviction matters likewise recognized the formal charges were deemed admitted and, thus, proven by clear and convincing evidence.4 Recognizing respondent's misconduct
The following violations were deemed admitted and, thus, proven by clear and convincing evidence: Rules 5.5(a), 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The following violations were deemed admitted and, thus, proven by clear and convincing evidence: Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(4), 1.15(b), 1.16(a), 1.16(d), 8.1(c), 8.3, 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(d) (continued...) 4
4 3

stemmed from the conversion of client funds and a criminal conviction (also involving conversion of client funds), the committee recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law, commencing from the expiration of the disbarment imposed in Callahan I. The committee did not cite any jurisprudential or statutory authority in support of its proposed sanction.

Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board The disciplinary board consolidated the two sets of formal charges and addressed them in a single recommendation. The board found all three charges were proven by clear and convincing evidence, based on the deemed admitted order and other documentary evidence in the record. In fashioning a sanction, the board observed the misconduct in the Rachal matter and the criminal conviction matter took place in 1997 and 1998, within the same general time frame as the misconduct subject of Callahan I. Relying on In re: Vaughan, 01-1948 (La. 10/26/01), 801 So. 2d 1058,5 the board determined, although respondent should be disbarred for this conduct, the disbarment should run concurrently with his disbarment in Callahan I. However, the board found the

misconduct in the Hardison matter took place in 1999 and 2000 and, thus, was not encompassed by the conduct in Callahan I. The board recommended that respondent

(...continued) and 8.4(g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The hearing committee erroneously stated Rule 1.15(f)(6), rather than Rule 1.15(f)(4), had been proven. Respondent was not charged with a violation of Rule 1.15(f)(6). Additionally, it neglected to cite that Rule 1.15(b) had been proven. By all indications, these were simply mistakes on the part of the hearing committee, rather than any intentional legal findings.
5

4

In Vaughan, this court stated: When a second disciplinary proceeding against an attorney involves misconduct which occurred during the same time period as the first proceeding, the overall discipline to be imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before the Court simultaneously. 5

be disbarred for this misconduct, commencing from the expiration of the disbarment imposed in Callahan I. It further proposed respondent be ordered to provide an accounting and payment of restitution. Respondent filed an objection to the board's findings and recommendation. The matter was docketed for briefing and argument in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download IN RE: MICHAEL D. CALLAHAN.pdf

Louisiana Law