LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD. IN RE: CLAUDE C. LIGHTFOOT, JR. (Bar Roll No.: 17989) DOCKET NO.: IO-DB-057

Transcription

1 LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: CLAUDE C. LIGHTFOOT, JR. (Bar Roll No.: 17989) DOCKET NO.: IO-DB-057 RECOMMENDAnONS OF THE HEARING COMMITTEE This matter came before this hearing committee on January 11, 2011 tor hearing on the merits of the allegations brought against Claude C. Lightfoot, Jr., (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent"), by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, (hereinafter referred to as "ODC"). After the close of evidence, the parties waived any post-hearing briefs and submitted the matter to this Hearing Committee for recommendation. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE The undisputed factual account of the events that led to the current charges against Respondent are these: In or around the summer of 2000, fonner United States Court District Judge Gabriel Thomas Porteous, Jr. was experiencing significant financial difficulties, and therefore contacted the Respondent to explore means by which he may manage his debt, including the possibility of bankruptcy protection. The Respondent met with then Judge Porteous and his wife and determined to deploy initially a nonbankruptcy "workout", whereby the Respondent would contact each creditor and ask them to consider a reduction in the debt owed to allow then Judge Porteous and his wife a means of retiring the debt without filing for bankruptcy. To that end, Respondent mailed letters to each ofthe creditors, setting forth his representation and inviting each creditor to consider a workout proposal. Thereafter, Respondent followed up his letters with telephone calls to the creditors in an etf0l1 to get

2 then Judge Porteous and his wife some relief. This process proved to be futile, as the majority of the creditors did not respond at all, and the few that did, knowingly or unknowingly, responded with a lawsuit and a subsequent rejection by their counsel of Respondent's proposal on behalf then Judge Porteous and his wife. As a result, Respondent again met with then Judge Porteous and his wife and recommended a Chapter J 3 Bankruptcy. In addition to recommending the filing, Respondent, on his own volition, also recommended that then Judge P011eous and his wife essentially falsify the petition. Specifically, Respondent recommended that his clients agree to allow him to purposefully misspell their names as "Ortous, G.T." and "Ortous, c.a." Additionally, Respondent counseled then Judge Porteous to obtain a P.O. Box and recommended that his clients agree to allow him to purposefully use that P.O. Box as the debtors' mailing address. Respondent's reasoning for this deception was supposedly to protect then Judge P011eous and his wife's identities from the press and the public. Apparently, during this time the local newspaper, the Times Picayune, would publish the names of all those persons who filed for bankruptcy. The data used to compile the information for these publications were solely the ill/ia! petitions. Thus, Respondent's plan, which he solely concocted without any prodding from then Judge Porteous or his wife, was to purposely falsify the initial Petition, have the Times Picayune publish the false names, and then amend the Petition to properly name then Judge Porteous and his wife and put their proper address. Respondent sold this plan to his clients, and they agreed to allow him to proceed with drafting and filing the initial petition as indicated. 2

3 Respondent's plan worked flawlessly. The falsified initial petition was filed and the Times Picayune published the "alias" created by Respondent. The very next day, Respondent sought to amend the initial Petition to properly name then Judge Porteous and his wife, and also put their correct address. To accomplish this amendment, however, Respondent sought the pennission ofbankruptcy Trustee S.J. Beaulieu. I When questioned relative to the need for the amendment, Respondent indicated that there were "typos" that needed to be corrected 2 Trustee Beaulieu testified that had he been truthfully advised by Respondent of how the false name had been included in the initial petition, he would have recommended dismissal of the bankruptcy petition as having been filed in bad faith. FORMAL CHARGES The formal charges in the subject matter provide, in pertinent part, are as follows: IV. The Respondent's intentional conduct reflects violations of the Rules ofprofessional Conduct including: Rule 1.2(d) - A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage in, or assist a client in conduct that a lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent... ; Rule 3.3(a)(I) and (3) - A lawyer shall not knowingly 1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; 3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false; Rule 3.3(b) - A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in a criminal or fi'audulent conduct related to the proceedings shall take reasonable remedial measures including if necessary disclosure to the tribunal; Rule 8.4(c) - It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts ofanother. It is unclear as to whether leave from the Trustee to amend the initial Petition was actually needed. However, it is undisputed that Respondent contacted Tmstee Beaulieu to seek such permission. 2 Respondent testified that he was very careful with his words and did not lie 10 the Trustee and say that there were merely "typos" that needed to be corrccted. However, TllIstee Beaulieu's testimony, which was more credible to this Committee, was that Respondent did indicate that "typos" needed to be corrected 3

4 FINDINGS OF FACT This Committee finds the evidence presented by ODC compelling. In fact, other than a denial that he did not lie to the Trustee and say that the amendment was merely to correct typos, Respondent did not deny any ofodc's factual allegations. The only issue, therefore, between ODC and Respondent was the level of sanction that is warranted in this matter. DETERlVIINATION OF RULES VIOLATED This committee hereby finds that Respondent violated Rule I.2(d); Rule 3.3(a)(I) and (3); Rule 3.3(b); and Rule 8.4(c). ASSESSMENT OF BASELINE SANCTION Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XIX, Section IO(C) states that in imposing a sanction after a finding of lawyer misconduct, the court or board shall consider the following factors: 1. whether the lawyer has violated a duty owed to a client, to the public, to the legal system, or to the profession; 2. whether the lawyer acted intentionally, knowingly, or negligently; 3. the amount of actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and 4. the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors. The Louisiana Supreme COUlt also relies on the ABA Sialldards for Imposillg Lawyer Sanctions ("ABA Standards") to determine the baseline sanction 3 However, none of the ABA Standards squarely fit the conduct in this case. Nonetheless, ODC and Respondent agree that even though no ABA Standard precisely fits Respondent's J Iilre Quaid, (La. 11/30/94); 646 So.2d 343,

5 conduct, Standard 6.1, which governs "False Statements, Fraud, and Misrepresentation" is the closest. Standard 6.1 provides as follows: Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances...the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation to a court: 6.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, with the intent to deceive the court, makes a false statement, submits a false document, or improperly withholds material information, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party, or causes a significant or potentially significant adverse effect on the legal proceeding Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that false statements or documents are being submitted to the court or that material information is improperly being withheld, and takes no remedial action, and cause injury or potential injury to a party to the legal proceeding, or causes an adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent in either determining whether statements or documents are false or in taking remedial action when material information is being withheld, and cause injury or potential injury to a party to the legal proceeding, or causes an adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated instance of neglect in determining whether submitted statements or documents are false or in failing to disclose material information upon learning of its falsity, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a party, or causes little or no adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding. ODC contends that Standard 6.12, which calls for suspension, fits the conduct in this case. Our Supreme Court has had the opportunity to speak to the appropriate discipline to be imposed when a lawyer provides false statement, evidence or information in connection with a pending proceeding. Tn the matter ofin Re: Watkins, (La. 06/16/1995), 656 So.2d 984, the Respondent was suspended for a period of two years 5

6 after a federal conviction of making false statements to a social security administration official to receive benefits for a client and for collecting excessive fees. Additionally, in the matter of In Re: Ellis, (La. 05/01/1998), 710 So.2d 794 the attorney was suspended for three years for falsifying a court judgment and order. Finally, in the matter of In Re: Bruno, (La. 05/11/2007), 956 So.2d 577, the Respondent failed in his duty of candor towards a federal judge regarding whether or not members of the plaintiffs steering coitunittee in a class action case had made impermissible payments to a witness identified with the defense. Noting that the Respondent had previously served a federal court system period ofsuspension and that he had no prior disciplinary record in nearly thirty years of practice, the Court imposed a three year period ofsuspension deferring all but eighteen months. Respondent, however, believes that the baseline sanction for his conduct falls at public reprimand. The crux of Respondent's argument is that under the guidelines, suspension is appropriate only where the lawyer "causes injury or potential injury to a party to the legal proceeding, or causes an adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding", and in this case there was no injury or potential injury. This I-Iearing Committee summarily rejects Respondent's assessment, and instead adopts the baseline sanction prayed for by ODe. First, the ABA Standards are guidelines by which this Hearing Connnittee may follow. However, the Standards are not mandatory; merely recommendations. Second, and most important, Respondent's actions, although causing no harm to his client or the actual legal proceeding in question, caused significant harm to reputation and the sanctity of the legal profession. It is never acceptable for an attorney to provide false information or documents to any tribunal. The 6

7 baseline sanction for such conduct, in order to preserve the honor of the legal professional, must be suspension, SANCTION RECOMMENDATION Although the baseline sanction for this conduct is suspension, there are various mitigating factors present in this matter, which leads this Committee to recommend a reduction in the degree of discipline imposed, First, Respondent has no prior disciplinary action against him, The Louisiana Supreme Court has consistently considered the absence of a prior disciplinary record as a mitigating factor, See, e,g., In I'e DeFrancesch, 877 So,2d 71 (La, 2004); see also In I'e Henderson, 761 So,2d 523 (La, 2000), Also, full disclosure to ODC and cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary process are mitigating factors, (See In I'e Bolton, 820 So,2d 548 (La, 2002), Given the mitigating factors present in this matter, it is the recommendation of this Hearing Committee that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period ofsix months, with all but thirty days deferred, Metairie, Louisiana, this 14 th day offebruary, HEARING COMMITTEE #11 Thomas p, Breslin, Chair DeWayne L. Williams, Attorney Member John 1. Uhl, Public Member BY:_~~~~~~~~_ DeWayne L. Willi For the Committee 7