LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: DEIDRE KATRINA PETERSON DOCKET NO. 17-DB-066 REPORT OF HEARING COMMITTEE # 08 INTRODUCTION This attorney disciplinary matter arises out of formal charges consisting of one count filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against Deidre Katrina Peterson ("Respondent"), Louisiana Bar Roll Number 25823. 1 ODC alleges that Respondent violated the following Rules ofprofessional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4(a) (b), and 1.16(d).2 PROCEDURAL HISTORY The formal charges were filed on November 9, 2017. Respondent filed an answer to the charges on December 22, 2017. The hearing of this matter was held on March 12, 2018. Deputy Disciplinary Counsel Paul E. Pendley appeared on behalf of ODC. Respondent appeared prose. For the following reasons, the hearing committee finds that based on the evidence presented at the hearing that ODC has failed to prove that Respondent has violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.3 (acting with reasonable diligence and promptness), Rule 1.4(a) (communicating reasonably and promptly with client regarding client's informed consent, means, status and relevant lawyer limitations regarding representation), Rule 1.4(b) (giving the client sufficient information to participate intelligently in decisions concerning the objective and means 1 Respondent is currently eligible to practice law. 2 See the attached Appendix for the text of these Rules. 1
of the representation) and Rule 1.16(d) (releasing to the client the entire file related to the matter upon request) and the complaint against her should be dismissed. FORMAL CHARGES The formal charges read, in pertinent part: The Complainant in the instant matter is Mr. Thommie Favors. Mr. Favors hired Respondent to represent his interest in a federal civil claim he had previously filed in proper person. Complaint filed a formal ODC complaint against Ms. Peterson on June 7, 2016. Complainant alleged that he had not received anything from Respondent since August of2015, which, at the time, consisted of documents from the court that he did not understand. Complaint said that he has tried to contact her, but she does not respond. Respondent had sent Complainant a letter stating that the judge had closed Complaint's case, despite her efforts to fight on his behalf. The letter made no further explanation of the dismissal of Complaint's claim. Complaint has sent to Respondent a written request for his case file, but respondent did not tender to him the file. Respondent wrote a very brief response to the formal complaint. She confirmed that she had notified Complainant that his federal claim had been dismissed, and she alleged that she had met with Complainant to discuss moving the case forward in state court. However, the ODC spoke with Complainant, who advised that he has still been unsuccessful contacting Respondent. A review of the docket master on PACER reveals no evidence that Respondent provided diligent representation on behalf of Complainant. Defendants filed FRCP Rule 12(b)(l) and 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for Failure to State Cause of Action. Federal Judge Susie Morgan noted, in her written Order, that no oppositions to the motions were filed by Respondent. Respondent did not disclose this fact to the ODC, and there is no evidence that Respondent disclosed this information to Complainant. In fact, Respondent represented to Complaint that she had engaged in "efforts to fight on his behalf," a statement not supported by the Docket Master or by Judge Morgan's findings. Respondent, by engaging the above described behavior, has violated Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.3, Rule 1.4(a) (b), and Rule 1.16(d). EVIDENCE Hearing in this matter was held on Monday, March 12, 2018. Respondent appeared Respondent appeared pro se. 2
The parties stipulated to the admissibility of ODC Exhibits 1-4. The parties also stipulated to the admissibility of Respondent's only exhibit, which was identical to ODC's Exhibit ODC 3. This exhibit was the Docket Master for the United States District Court, Eastern District, Case Number 2:14-CV-01786. (Transcript pg. 8). Though ODC represented that the Complainant, Mr. Thommie Favors, would appear at the hearing and that a subpoena had been issued commanding his appearance, Complainant failed to appear and testify regarding his complaint. At the start of the hearing, Complainant had not arrived and a reasonable recess was taken to give additional time for Complainant to arrive. (Transcript pgs. 10-11 ). Thereafter ODC attempted to contact Complainant to confirm his intention to attend the hearing. (Transcript pg. 11). After the recess, ODC confirmed that it was unable to contact Complainant. (Transcript pg. 11.) Despite the failure of Complainant to appear, ODC felt that it could meet its burden of proving that Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. (Transcript pgs. 15-16). ODC called no additional witnesses other than Respondent, whose testimony is summarized below. Testimony of Deidre Katrina Peterson Upon direct examination Respondent testified that she has been licensed to practice law in Louisiana since 1998 and has been a practicing attorney for 30-31 years. (Transcript pg. 26). She was also licensed to practice law in the State of Wisconsin. (Transcript pg. 26). Early in her Louisiana practice, Respondent worked as a clerk in Orleans Parish providing free legal services to indigent defenders. (Transcript pg. 27). She has generally handled all types of matters in her practice. (Transcript pg. 27-28). She also testified that she had an extensive federal court practice both in Louisiana and Wisconsin. (Transcript pg. 26). 3
She first met Complainant after her paralegal, Mr. Stanley Price, informed her that he could use her services. (Transcript pg. 30). Complainant had already filed a pro se complaint against numerous defendants in a suit alleging defective construction and failure of a construction company to release withheld funds to Complainant. (Transcript pgs. 29-31). Respondent was hired to assist Complainant with his federal case. (Transcript pg. 33). Respondent testified that when she reviewed the federal complaint and the allegations contained therein, she knew there were "too many defendants" and that the matter lacked diversity jurisdiction. (Transcript pgs. 33-35). It was her opinion that the matter should have been brought in Orleans Parish Civil District Court and that she told Complainant this on several occasions. (Transcript pgs. 35, 64-65). She testified that she went to his business and personally told him that the federal court proceeding lacked diversity jurisdiction, but that she did not draft any letters noting this because she felt that face to face verbal communication was clearer to Complainant. (Transcript pgs. 35-36, 41). After her enrollment in the matter, Respondent requested an extension of time from the Court to file opposition briefs to the various motions to dismiss filed by defendants. (Transcript pgs. 37-38). Respondent testified that after undertaking the representation, she researched the issues regarding diversity jurisdiction and realized that the complaint, as drafted, lacked federal diversity jurisdiction. (Transcript pg. 38). She explained that she did not file any opposition to the defendants' motions to dismiss because she did not have a legal basis for opposing the motions and to do so could subject her to sanctions for filing an opposition where diversity jurisdiction was so clearly lacking. (Transcript pgs. 39-40, 47, 49, 65-67). She also believed that "to propagate and promote a legal theory that [she] knew was not sound" would be unethical. (Transcript pg. 73 ). It was her intention to bring Complainant's claims against the defendants in state court after dismissal of the non-diverse defendants. (Transcript pgs. 40, 67). She testified that 4
Complainant understood that she had no legal basis to oppose the motions to dismiss and would not do so. (Transcript pgs. 40, 83-84). Additionally, subsequent to filing the Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition, Respondent filed an Amended and Supplemental Complaint in the matter, which was the last pleading she filed prior to the suit's dismissal signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (Transcript pgs. 42-43, 44, 47-48). ODC admitted that the complaint, as written, lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction. (Transcript pg. 58). As far as communication in the matter, Respondent denied the allegations of the complaint that she failed to communicate with Complainant regarding the disposition ofhis federal suit and testified that she personally met with Complainant several times at his place of business and telephoned him regularly during her representation. (Transcript pgs. 58-60). She also sent Complainant a letter informing him that his federal suit had been dismissed, which is ODC's exhibit ODC 2. (Transcript pg. 61 ). Respondent subsequently asked Complainant for documents and information so that she could prepare his state court petition, but he never provided the documents. (Transcript pgs. 62-63). Regarding the allegations that Respondent failed to return Complainant's file, Respondent testified that her paralegal, Stanley Price, personally hand delivered his file to him after he terminated the representation. (Transcript pgs. 60-61). During Respondent's direct testimony she stated that she did not help Complainant draft his original complaint and that due to the allegations thereof, diversity jurisdiction was lacking. (Transcript pgs. 64-65). She reiterated that it was her belief that there was no defense to the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that she was of the opinion that the Complainant's claims should be pursued in state court. (Transcript pgs. 65-67). She testified that after Complainant discharged her, he never filed his state court action against the defendants. (Transcript pg. 71). 5
Ultimately, Respondent testified that she did not believe she could pursue a viable federal court action without the participation of the non-diverse defendants and that the matter should be dismissed in its entirety. (Transcript pg. 75). It was her recollection that she met with Complainant at least 10 to 16 times during her representation of him in handling this matter. (Transcript pgs. 81-82). She believed that if she filed an appeal to the dismissal of the federal court complaint, it would have amounted to a frivolous appeal and believe that she clearly explained the effect of the dismissal to Complainant. (Transcript pgs. 83-84). Testimony of Stanley Price Mr. Price started his testimony with an apology to Respondent on the basis that he recommended Complainant to her for assistance. (Transcript pg. 86). He has several jobs, but also works as a paralegal, contracting out his services to several lawyers. (Transcript pgs. 87-88). He has worked with Respondent on several cases in federal court. (Transcript pg. 88). Mr. Price met Complainant through a mutual friend, Lester Jackson, while he and Mr. Jackson went to inspect Complainant's home to give an estimate of damages caused by the contractor during a home elevation. (Transcript pgs. 88-89). Mr. Price recalled attending the meeting with Complainant and Respondent at Complainant's place of business to discuss the case and forward plan in the litigation. (Transcript pgs. 90-91 ). They also all met on other occasions at Complainant's place ofbusiness to discuss the case. (Transcript pg. 92). Mr. Price also assisted Respondent by performing legal research regarding federal subject matter jurisdiction and that she was concerned that filing an opposition to the dismissal motions may be unethical and/or frivolous. (Transcript pgs. 93-95). He was also present when Respondent explained to Complainant that the federal suit lacked subject matter jurisdiction and would ultimately be dismissed. (Transcript pg. 6
96). It was his recollection that Complainant had a hard time understanding the reasoning of the dismissal and the consequences thereof. (Transcript pg. 97) He also testified that the Complainant called him to request his file from Respondent and he instructed him to contact Respondent directly. (Transcript pgs. 97-98). He testified that he personally returned Complainant's case file to him in June of2015. (Transcript pgs. 98, 105, 108, 112). He directly refuted Complainant's allegation that Respondent failed to return his case file and violated Rule ofprofessional Conduct 1.16(d). (Transcript pgs. 106-107). Further, it was his recollection that Complainant told him that he was going to get another lawyer to handle his legal matter before and after it was dismissed from federal court. Finally, he testified that substantial work hours were spent working on Complainant's matter by himself and Respondent. (Transcript pg. 99). FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the testimony of the witnesses and the evidence presented by ODC and Respondent, this committee finds that ODC has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4( a) (b), and 1.16( d). Further this committee finds that the following facts have been proved by clear and convincing evidence: 1) Respondent exercised reasonable diligence in her representation of Complainant; 2) that Respondent timely communicated with Complainant regarding the material facts and substance of his case; and 3) that Respondent timely returned Complainant's case file upon request by Complainant. Based upon these fmdings, the complaint against Deidre Katrina Peterson should be dismissed. 7
RULES VIOLATED Based upon the committee's findings of fact, no evidence has been presented that supports that Deidre Katrina Peterson violated any Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the complaint. SANCTION Based upon the law and evidence presented and the factual findings of the hearing committee, the imposition of a sanction in this matter is unwarranted and none is imposed. CONCLUSION Based on the law, evidence and factual findings in this matter, the Committee would recommend that the complaint against Deidre Katrina Peterson be dismissed. New Orleans, Louisiana, this.:3i}tkday of May, 2018. Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board Hearing Committee # 08 Terrance A. Prout, Committee Chair For the Committee 8
APPENDIX Rule 1.3. Diligence A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Rule 1.4. Communication (a) A lawyer shall: (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent, as defmed in Rule l.o(e), is required by these Rules; (2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished; (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and (5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. (b) The lawyer shall give the client sufficient information to participate intelligently in decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and the means by which they are to be pursued. (c)... Rule 1.16. Declining or Terminating Representation (a)... (b)... (c)... (d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. Upon written request by the client, the lawyer shall promptly release to the client or the client's new lawyer the entire file relating to the matter. The lawyer may retain a copy of the file but shall not condition release over issues relating to the expense of copying the file or for any other reason. The responsibility for the cost of copying shall be determined in an appropriate proceeding. 9