The Public Side of Lawyer Discipline: The Role of Non-Lawyer Public Members

By Charles B. Plattsmier, Chief Discipline Counsel

Reprinted from Louisiana Bar Journal, Vol. 65, No. 5, February/March 2018, published by the Louisiana State Bar Association

If someone called and asked if you would be willing to volunteer your time for the next six years helping to regulate a profession of which you were not a part of, would you? If told it paid nothing, generated little or no fanfare, would entail spending hundreds of hours of your time annually reviewing documents, listening to testimony and helping to draft opinions, would you be interested? I suspect many of us would politely decline and chuckle at the notion after hanging up the phone.

But since April 1, 1990, literally hundreds of non-lawyers have vol- unteered their time and effort to support the Supreme Court’s regulation of Louisiana’s legal profession. The inclusion of non-lawyers in our disciplinary system has proven to be perhaps the most significant and successful part of the Court’s decision to enact Rule XIX nearly 28 years ago and it continues to pay dividends today. . .

Observations from One Layman at the Bench

By Michael DesJardins

Reprinted from Louisiana Bar Journal, Vol. 65, No. 5, February/March 2018, published by the Louisiana State Bar Association

I had worked with attorneys extensively handling litigation claims when one attorney asked if I would like to become an Attorney Disciplinary Hearing Committee lay member It was with some trepidation that I agreed to apply for the position but I was accepted. I had no idea what I had gotten myself into, but was pleasantly surprised by the experience.

The three-member committee was comprised of myself and two attorneys. My expectation was that the attorneys would handle most everything and I would be "window dressing." However, that was not my experience. I was somewhat dumbfounded when we heard our first case. I attempted to give input during the committee discussion about what our recommendation would be for the attorney brought up on disciplinary charges. I expected a courteous hearing by the two attorney committee members, but not much else. In fact, what they said was that my opinion was very important to them in reaching a decision. . .

Recent Decisions From the Louisiana Supreme Court

IN RE GREGORY SWAFFORD (New Orleans), 2017-B-2154, (3/23/18):  The Court suspended the respondent for six months, with three months deferred, for neglecting a legal matter and failing to communicate with a client.

Deemed Admitted Matters:

IN RE LAETITIA BLACK (Shreveport), 2017-B-1546, (3/13/18):  The Court suspended the respondent for one year, with six months deferred, for neglecting a legal matter, failing to communicate with a client, failing to refund unearned fees, and failing to cooperate with the ODC in two investigations.

IN RE LOUISE ANNE KLAILA (New Orleans), 2018-B-0093, (3/23/18):  The Court suspended the respondent for one year and one day for commingling and converting client funds, neglecting her client’s legal matter, failing to communicate with her client, failing to return an unearned fee, and failing to cooperate with the ODC in the investigation of two disciplinary complaints against her.

Consent Discipline:

IN RE ERIC O. PERSON (New Orleans), 2017-B-2159, (3/2/18):  The Court suspended the respondent for six months, fully deferred, for mishandling his client trust account and entering into an improper business relationship with a client.

IN RE JAMES CASEY FOS (Covington), 2017-B-2108, (3/2/18):  The Court suspended the respondent for three years for filing a frivolous claim, presenting a request for a temporary restraining order in an improper fashion, and misusing his client trust account, which resulted in the commingling and conversion of client funds.

IN RE GREGORY J. NOTO (Chalmette), 2018-B-0179, (3/2/18):  The Court suspended the respondent for six months, fully deferred, for engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest.

IN RE JOHN ARTHUR BRITTAIN (Natchitoches), 2018-B-0188, (3/2/18):  The Court disbarred the respondent, retroactive to the date of his interim suspension, for conversion of client funds.

IN RE CHRISTA HAYES FORRESTER (Covington), 2018-B-0287, (3/23/18):  The Court suspended the respondent for six months, fully deferred, for neglecting a legal matter and failing to communicate with a client.