In Re Conduct Of Conry

Facts

D held his client trust account at Whitney National Bank. On November 22, 2006, Whitney charged a $30 overdraft fee to the account. As of November 30, 2006, D's account was overdrawn by $2,608.62. On July 17, 2007, Whitney charged a $32 overdraft fee to the account. As of July 31, 2007, D's trust account was overdrawn by $12,915.26. Respondent made a $500 deposit to the account during the month of August, but as of August 31, 2007, the account was still overdrawn by $12,415.26. D used the account to make a $249 car payment to Capital One Auto on March 30, 2007. He used the account on June 12, 2007, to make a $275 payment to Sprint and used it again on June 26, 2007, to make another $300 payment to Sprint. On July 6, 2007, D used his trust account to make a $2,092.24 payment to Lexis-Nexis and a $330 payment to Sprint. Whitney filed suit to collect the $12,915.26 overdraft. D attempted to cover this overdraft on July 16, 2007, by depositing a $19,500 personal check drawn on the account of Reine S. Pema Sanga/John D. Conry. However, this check was returned due to insufficient funds in the account. On November 28, 2007, D made a $14,364.48 payment to Whitney via a cashier's check. On December 3, 2007, the judge presiding over the Whitney suit signed a motion for satisfaction of docket as the matter had been 'compromised and resolved completely.'  D stipulated that his conduct violated Rule 1.15 (safekeeping property of clients or third persons) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. On November 9, 2007, Waymond Watson filed a disciplinary complaint against D. Watson paid D a $900 fee to represent him in a child support matter. After discovering that the state of Florida had jurisdiction over the matter, Watson retained counsel licensed to practice law in Florida and requested that D refund the $900 fee. D agreed to refund the $900 as well as an additional $100 for the 'inconvenience caused.' Approximately three months after his first request for a refund and after several email exchanges D finally provided the $1,000 refund. D stipulated that his conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.15(d) (failure to timely remit funds to a client or third person), 1.15(e) (when in the course of representation a lawyer is in possession of property in which two or more persons claim interests, the property shall be kept separate by the lawyer until the dispute is resolved), and 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct). D held his client trust account at Chase Bank. On January 10, 2008, a $20,000 check drawn on the account was presented for payment at a time when the account balance was only $5,038.75. The check was returned unpaid, and Chase charged a $25 fee to the account. However, the check cleared the account several days later without incident. D stipulated that his conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.15 and 8.4(a). Raquel Ardoin hired D to represent her in an EEOC matter. The fee agreement was a $2,000 fee to be paid in installments. Ardoin claimed she forwarded one installment payment of $150. D acknowledged that Ardoin forwarded him a right-to-sue letter she received from EEOC. D informed Ardoin he was too busy to attend to her legal matter but agreed to work on her case until she was able to retain new counsel. D failed to timely file her claim. D stipulated that his conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3, 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), and 8.4(a). Between January 2010 and May 2010, P received several notices from Chase that D's client trust account had been overdrawn. Respondent failed to fully cooperate with P in its investigation of this matter by failing to provide P with all requested documents. The auditor's report indicated that, between July 2009 and March 2010, D received settlement checks totaling $651,820.60 for thirty-eight clients. Eighteen of the clients received no funds from their settlements, and the auditor determined that D converted approximately $188,000 of the funds to his own use.  D's trust account was overdrawn by $10,504.87. On June 3, 2010, D transferred funds in that amount from his operating account to the trust account; however, after the transfer, the operating account was overdrawn by $10,666.23. On July 16, 2010, Chase closed D's trust and operating accounts and refused payment of any checks presented on either account. P alleged that D's conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.15, 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), and 8.4(a). Rosa Melendez hired D to represent her in a personal injury matter. In September 2010, D sent Ms. Melendez a $2,871.29 settlement check, drawn on the account of 'I Write It Inc.' Melendez complained to P, and she indicated that D never consulted with her before entering into a settlement agreement. She also indicated that she never endorsed a check from the insurance company and had no knowledge of the settlement amount. She complained that she made several attempts to contact D, to no avail. D stipulated that his conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.2 (scope of the representation), 1.4, 1.16 (obligations upon termination of the representation), and 8.4(a). Moses hired D to represent her in a claim against her homeowner's insurance company to recover proceeds to repair Hurricane Katrina damages. D settled the claim, and Ms. Moses endorsed the settlement check. D explained that he disbursed her funds to the wrong client and was attempting to recover the overpayment. D disbursed a $6,500 check to Ms. Moses and explained that the purpose of the check was to cover the interest with the rest being 'lagniappe for the hassle.' D failed to disburse any additional funds. D stipulated that his conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.15, 1.16, and 8.4(a). Melvin and Maggie hired D. D negotiated a $31,000 settlement and they met with D on May 24, 2010, to sign the receipt, release, and indemnity agreement. D informed the Wellses the settlement proceeds would be disbursed in approximately two weeks. Three weeks later, D had not yet disbursed the funds, the Wellses mailed D a written inquiry via certified mail. D failed to respond to the letter. The Wellses hired a new attorney, who attempted to contact D regarding the disbursement, to no avail. D stipulated that his conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.4, 1.15, and 1.16. Joseph hired D to represent her in a Hurricane Katrina damage claim against her homeowner's insurance company. In July 2010, Joseph signed settlement documents, but she never received the funds designated for her home repairs. She made several attempts to contact D, to no avail. D stipulated that his conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.4, 1.15, and 8.4(a). D entered into an agreement with Dr. Michael Haydel for the medical treatment of D's clients with payment to be rendered upon the settlement of the clients' cases. After learning that several cases had been settled, Dr. Haydel provided final narrative reports and bills for services rendered to the clients totaling $16,085.00. D failed to pay the outstanding bills. D stipulated that his conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.15 and 8.4(a). Butler hired D to represent her in a Hurricane Katrina damage claim against her homeowner's insurance company. D informed her that her claim had settled for $19,805.86. Ms. Butler met with D in February 2010 to sign the settlement check. D did not immediately disburse the settlement funds. Butler's husband went to D's office unannounced and was issued a $3,000 check. The check was not honored several times due to insufficient funds in the bank account. D provided Butler [with $3,500 in exchange for the check. D issued Butler a $4,000 check. However, he failed to disburse the balance of the settlement. D stipulated that his conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.15 and 1.16. Froeba hired D to represent her in an insurance claim for damages caused by Hurricane Gustav. Froeba executed a settlement statement that indicated her claim settled for $11,000, of which she would receive $7,064.50 after all fees were deducted. D issued a cashier's check to her in the amount of $3,500. Froeba tried several times to contact D regarding the disbursal of the remaining balance, to no avail. D failed to issue the remainder of the funds due to Ms. Froeba. P alleged that Ds conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.4, 1.15(d), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the representation), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). Parker hired D to represent her in an employment matter. Ms. Parker paid D a $5,000 retainer fee and signed a contingency fee agreement. Parker's case was still pending, and D informed her that he was no longer licensed to practice law and she would need to retain new counsel. D offered to refund a share of the retainer fee after he paid all other debts arising from his interim suspension from the practice of law. He has not yet been able to refund the unearned fee. P alleged that D's conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3, 1.15(d), 1.16(d), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c). Brown hired D to represent her in an insurance claim for damages caused by Hurricane Katrina. D settled the claim, and according to Ms. Brown, two checks were issued in the amounts of $10,000 and $20,000. Ms. Brown stated that she received $5,607.08 from the $10,000 settlement; however, she has not received funds from the $20,000 settlement. D informed her that the $20,000 check had been sent to her mortgage company for endorsement.  There was no mortgage on the property. D provided her with the number of the check and instructed her to contact the mortgage company to determine whether the check had been negotiated. Brown stated that the mortgage company informed her they never received a check on her behalf. P alleged that D's conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1 (failure to provide competent representation to a client), 1.15(d), 1.16(d), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).

P filed formal charges against D. D claimed that his inexperience in the practice of law caused him to exercise poor management skills in the operation of his law office and caused his improper use of his client trust account as an operating account. D denied converting client funds or engaging in intentional misconduct and denied harming any of his clients. D denied any misconduct for any of the charges filed against him. Documentary evidence included the transcript of the sworn statement of Dan Rees, who was the executive counsel for the Disaster Recovery Unit of the Louisiana Division of Administration from July 2006 until August 2013. Rees examined copies of eight settlement checks made payable to the Louisiana Division of Administration, D, and D's client. All of the checks were deposited into D's trust account between July 2009 and March 2010, the period of P's audit of the account. The Louisiana Division of Administration did not receive its portion of the proceeds, which totaled $43,464.80, from these eight settlement checks. D called his psychiatrist to testify before the committee about the mental health issues from which he suffers, including Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), depression, and anxiety. He also introduced copies of cashier's checks totaling $49,844.91, which funds were disbursed to his former clients out of the attorney's fees he would have earned from settlements. The Louisiana Division of Administration was paid $12,159.57 of these funds as a third party in many of his clients' homeowner's insurance claims. D admitted that he effectively used his trust account as a personal account. D improperly paid a client his total disbursement from the trust account, which resulted in a $12,000 overdraft. Since then, D has had a rolling, snowballing deficit in his trust account. He explained that, when a client's case settled, the client would have to wait for payment until the next client's case settled. Since the clients had to wait for payment, he would pay them extra funds to make up for the inconvenience. He would not, however, properly account for the funds he paid out. In the spring of 2008, he attended Trust Accounting School and, thereafter, stopped using his trust account as a personal account. The deficit, however, did not clear up. By 2010, the deficit was so unmanageable that overdrafts began to occur. As such, he did not object to being placed on interim suspension. He referred many of his cases to his former law partner, Kevin Tucker, and instructed Mr. Tucker to disburse his future attorney's fees to his former clients who were still owed money. D indicated that he believes he still owes his former clients between $50,000 and $100,000. The committee noted that D engaged in multiple instances of conversion of his clients' property. He also neglected legal cases and failed to communicate with clients. The committee further noted that, while D claimed he was using client and third party funds to pay other clients, and not himself, he continued to withhold his attorney's fees from settlements in preference of what was owed to the clients and third parties. D repeatedly violated the basic duties of loyalty an attorney owes to his or her clients. Relying on the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined that the baseline sanction is disbarment. The board further determined that D knowingly and intentionally violated duties owed to his clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. His conduct caused actual harm to multiple clients and third parties. After considering the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the board determined that the baseline sanction is disbarment. In aggravation, the board found the following: a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, and indifference to making restitution. In mitigation, the board found the absence of a prior disciplinary record, personal or emotional problems, and inexperience in the practice of law. The board recommended that he be permanently disbarred. D filed an objection.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.