 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Boudreau12/3/2003
This disciplinary matter arises from one count of formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Raymond Earl Boudreau, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently on suspension.
PRIOR DISCIPLINARY RECORD
Before addressing the instant charges, we find it helpful to review respondent's prior disciplinary history. Between 1998 and 1999, respondent neglected and abandoned two client matters, failed to communicate with three clients, failed to account for and return fees to one client, failed to satisfy student loan obligations and failed to cooperate with the ODC in four disciplinary investigations. Pursuant to a consent petition filed in this court, we suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of three years. In re: Boudreau, 00-3158 (La. 1/5/01), 776 So. 2d 428 ("Boudreau I"). Respondent remains suspended under that judgment.
UNDERLYING FACTS
Donaldson Matter
In 1997, Marvin Donaldson retained respondent for a $2,000 flat fee to represent him in criminal proceedings, in which he was charged with a fourth offense of driving while intoxicated. Between June 1997 and September 1999, respondent made eleven court appearances and filed an appellate brief on behalf of Mr. Donaldson. Thereafter, respondent failed to make any appearances on behalf of his client. He made no effort to withdraw from the representation and instead simply abandoned Mr. Donaldson.
Failure to Cooperate
In April 2001, four months after respondent had been suspended in Boudreau I, Mr. Donaldson filed a complaint with the ODC. He maintained that he attempted to contact respondent in order to request a refund of his fee, but was unsuccessful in reaching respondent.
The ODC forwarded Mr. Donaldson's complaint to respondent and requested he address the allegations. Respondent failed to reply to the ODC's request. The ODC then sought to serve respondent with a subpoena compelling his appearance and production of documents at a sworn deposition, but was unable to serve him, despite six attempts to do so. On September 21, 2001, respondent faxed a letter to the ODC indicating he would respond to the complaint within five days. However, respondent failed to do so.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Formal Charges
Following its investigation, the ODC filed one count of formal charges against respondent based on his substantive misconduct in the Donaldson matter, as well as his failure to cooperate in the investigation of the Donaldson complaint. The charges allege violations of Rules 1.3 (lack of diligence), 1.4(a) (failure to keep client reasonably informed about the status of legal matter and failure to comply with reasonable requests for information), 1.5(f)(6) (failure to account for or refund unearned fees, and/or place disputed funds in trust) and 8.4(g) (failure to cooperate with the ODC) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 9(c) (failure to respond to a lawful demand of a disciplinary authority).
Respondent failed to answer or otherwise reply to the formal charges. Accordingly, the factual allegations were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). No formal hearing was held, but the parties were given an opportunity to file with the hearing committee written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue of sanctions. Respondent made no filing with the committee.
Recommendation of the Hearing Committee
The hearing committee found the formal charges were deemed admitted and, as such, pr
Page 1 2 3 4 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|