Pennsylvania: Lawyer’s suspension vacated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

In Re Counsel v. Debbie Ann Carlitz, 1336 No. 131 DB 2007. (March 26, 2008)
Following the submission to the Supreme Court of a Joint Petition in Support of Discipline, Debbie Ann Carlitz was suspended on consent for a period of one year and one day by Order of the Court dated March 26, 2008 according to the Disciplinary Board Rules Rule 277 Pa EE §§ 91.91-91.91 of. Petitioner requested review of this matter as she claimed that she did not enter into the consent discipline knowingly, freely or voluntarily. By Order of May 11, 2009, the Court remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing. Office of Disciplinary Counsel and Respondent entered into Joint Stipulations of Fact and Law on August 27, 2009. The Hearing Committee accepted the Stipulations and based on the information contained therein, recommended that the Suspension Order be vacated and the matter remanded. The Joint Stipulations of Fact and Law support the finding that Respondent did not personally endorse the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline or expressly authorize anyone to sign the Joint Petition on her behalf. It is clear that Bonnie Sweeten, Respondent's paralegal, handled all aspects of the consent discipline and never revealed the circumstances to Respondent. Respondent remained ignorant of her suspended status until it was pointed out to her by a colleague. For these reasons, the Board recommends that the Suspension Order at 131DB 2007 be vacated and the matter remanded to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for further consideration.
This case teaches the importance of the lawyer’s duty under Pa R.D.E. Rule 215 (e) and 215 (g) that states that an attorney has an affirmative duty to know the status of his privilege to practice law and comply with professional requirements in Re Anonymous No 123 DB 1996 (Simon Belli,111), 41 Pa.D. & C. 4th 290,299-300(1998). An attorney cannot continue practicing law after being transferred to inactive status for failing to fulfill continuing legal education requirements. An attorney must enter into the consent discipline knowingly, freely or voluntarily.

Louisiana: Attorney permanently disbarred for negligence against several clients

In In Re S. Judd Tooke, 22 So. 3d 902 (La. 2009), the Louisiana Supreme Court ordered a lawyer’s name to be stricken from the roll, their license to practice law revoked in Louisiana, and that the attorney be permanently prohibited from being readmitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, and was ordered to pay full restitution to his victims.

The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the hearing committee’s conclusions that the lawyer knowingly neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to properly supervise his non-lawyer assistant, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, had converted client to his own use by billing and receiving payment for expenses and legal fees that did not exist, did not properly communicate a fee arrangement to a client, did not refund unearned fees, didn’t fulfill obligations upon termination of representations, also engaged in conflicts of interest. Also the lawyer’s conduct was more intentional than negligent. The attorney violated duties to his clients, the legal system, and the legal profession, he actually caused substantial harm. The attorney was in violation under Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.1(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 1.5(b), 1.7(a), 1.8(c), 1.15(a), 1.16(d), 3.2, 5.3, 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c).

The lawyer had admitted to some of the deceit, yet did not offer any type of repayment to the victims of his deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation. The lawyer failed to fix any of the wrongs that he made in regards to The Rhodes Matter, The Hamilton Matter. The lawyer had used a client trust account for his own personal use. The lawyer failed to answer the formal charges that were brought against himself; he also never filed anything for the hearing committee’s consideration. In cases in which the lawyer does not answer the formal charges, the factual allegations of those charges are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3).
This case teaches the importance of the lawyer’s duty under Rule 1.1(a) failure to provide competent representation to a client, Rule 1.4 Communication, and overall Rule 8.4(c) engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation