LOUISIANA ATTORNEY BROUGHT UP ON THREE COUNTS BEFORE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

The Office of disciplinary Counsel (ODC) filled formal charges against respondent, Kenner O. Miller Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Louisiana. The ODC was presented three different cases in which the respondent violated multiple provisions of the Louisiana Rules of Professional
Count I The Boyed Matter
Issues
In December 2000, Baton Rouge attorney Drew Louviere asked the respondent to lead counsel in the representation of Allen Boyed. Mr. Boyed had been involved in two car accidents, one in Georgia and one in Louisiana. Respondent agreed to cooperate with a Georgia attorney as local counsel for the Georgia case, but neglectfully failed to do so. On February 12, 2002 respondent informed Mr. Louvier that “ I’ve got the Georgia matter taken care of, don’t worry”.
Latter respondent prepared a lawsuit as a Pro Se filling signed by Mr. Boyed, when in fact, Mr. Boyed had not signed such document. Respondent affixed Mr. Boyed’s signature with-out having power of attorney or any other proper legal written authority to sign his name. The respondent further more failed to inform the Cobb County Superior Court that the signature on the lawsuit was not that of Mr. Boyed’s. Respondent also failed to submit the necessary forms to have the suit assigned to a judge or served in a timely manner. On three separate occasions Mr. Boyed expressed his concern in wanting to know information on his Georgia case and respondent mislead his client by informing Mr. Boyed that a settlement package was being prepared . By September, the “settlement” package had still not been submitted. By this time Mr. Boyed asked for his file back and sought disciplinary action against the respondent.
Rule of Law
The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct:
Rule 1.3 (Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal) 4.1 (truthfulness in statement to others), 8.4 (b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyers honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer),8.4 (c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4 (d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).



Count II Heath Matter
Issues
In July 2001, Amy Heath retained the respondent to handle a medical malpractice claim, respondent attempted to locate an expert witness to testify on the case. Respondent briefly spoke with one other attorney and one physician who only reviewed a part of the medical records. On September 2003, respondent filed a petition for damages on Ms. Heath’s behalf with the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Perish of Ouachita. Thereafter, the respondent failed to respond to the defendants discovery reports. Motions for summary judgment on behalf of the defendants were granted in open court on April 5, 2005. A joint motion dismissing the remaining defendants, which the respondent signed was granted on July 24,2006. In May 2005, respondent mailed a copy of the April 2005 Judgment to Ms. Heath and informed her that he had been unable to locate an doctor to testify that the malpractice had in fact occurred. Subsequently Ms Heath requested her file, but the respondent did not send it to her until October 2006, more than a year after the summary judgment had been granted.
Rules of Law
The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct:
Rules of professional Conduct: Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the representation),and 8.4(c) Respondent stipulated that he violated the Rules of Professional Conducts alleged.
Count III The Hampton Matter
Issues
Respondent has never been admitted to the practice of law in Texas. Nonetheless, on March 31,2004, Linda Hampton hired respondent to represent her in a personal injury matter, that had occurred on July 19, 2003 in Harris Count Texas. respondent corresponded with two Texas attorneys about undertaking Ms. Hampton’s representation. Afterwards respondent did not send a settlement demand or otherwise correspond with the apparent defendants in Ms. Hampton’s case. Ms. Hamptons accident occurred on July 19, 2003 and respondent listed it as occurring on August 19, 2003, furthermore respondent did not file the petition on Ms. Hamptons behalf. During the course of the case respondent failed to keep her properly and accurately advised of the status of the case. He failed to inform her that he had not timely filed the lawsuit on her behalf, had not been admitted Pro Vac Vice in her case, and had not submitted a motion for Pro Vac admission.
Rule of law
The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct:
Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 3.3 (a)(1) (a lawyers shall not knowingly 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), 5.5(a) (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d).Respondent stipulated that he violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged.

Holding
After hearing all of the evidence presented the committee determined based on the stipulated facts the respondent repeatedly failed to provide his clients with diligent representation and repeatedly provided them with inaccurate or incomplete information. The committee further found respondent knowingly deceived his clients and the Georgia court by signed Mr. Boyd’s name to the lawsuit without Mr. Boyd’s authorization. The committee also found respondent knowingly deceived the Texas court by post-dating Ms. Hampton’s accident date and misrepresenting his Pro Vac Vice status.
The committee further determined respondent caused injury or potential injury to his clients, and he knowingly engaged in deceitful conduct. The board found the following aggravating factors present: a pattern of misconduct, multiple offences, submission of false statements during the disciplinary process, and the substantial experience in the practice of law. The board rejected the mitigating factor of mental disability or chemical dependency due to respondent’s use of cocaine just prior to his January 28, 2009 deposition and his abandonment of the LAP (lawyers Assistance Project) program. After considering, we adopt the board’s recommendation and suspend respond from the practice of law for eighteen months,