In re Hall
2015 WL 5511898, 181 So. 3d 643 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Disbarment is the appropriate sanction for an attorney who engages in a pattern of knowing and intentional misconduct, including client neglect, dishonesty toward a tribunal, unauthorized practice of law, criminal conduct, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations, especially when aggravating factors outweigh any mitigating circumstances.
Facts:
- In January 2011, Maggie Ahmann retained Douglas Kent Hall to represent her in a custody action for her grandchildren and paid a $2,000 deposit.
- During the representation, Hall filed a petition but failed to return Ms. Ahmann’s phone calls or communicate with her, and after termination, never provided an accounting or refund of unearned fees.
- In April 2012, Attorney Jonathan Johnson notified Hall that he would file an emergency custody petition based on allegations that Hall’s client (the mother) was abusing illegal drugs.
- The same afternoon, Hall purchased 'Ultra Clean' shampoo, a product commonly used to avoid positive hair follicle drug tests, and visited his client at her home.
- The following day, during a pre-trial conference, Hall adamantly denied to the judge that his client was taking illegal drugs, despite the judge ordering drug screening, including cuticle and hair follicle testing for Hall's client.
- In February 2012, Mehgan Hutchinson retained Hall for an uncontested domestic matter, paying a flat fee of $1,000, but Hall failed to return her calls, communicate about the case, or provide evidence of having done any work.
- Between September 19 and November 16, 2012, Hall was ineligible to practice law for failure to pay bar dues, disciplinary assessments, and file a trust account registration, yet he filed a petition and attempted a court appearance on behalf of a client.
- On March 11, 2013, Hall pleaded guilty to one count of theft of utility service and one count of theft, receiving suspended jail sentences and one year of supervised probation.
- Despite receiving notice of disciplinary complaints, Hall failed to respond and failed to appear for multiple subpoenaed sworn statements on December 18, 2012, January 15, 2013, and February 18, 2013.
Procedural Posture:
- The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) filed formal charges against Douglas Kent Hall for various alleged Rules of Professional Conduct violations.
- Hall failed to answer the formal charges, leading the factual allegations to be deemed admitted as proven by clear and convincing evidence per Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3).
- A hearing committee reviewed the ODC's submission, made factual findings consistent with the allegations, and concluded Hall violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct, recommending disbarment and restitution.
- The Disciplinary Board reviewed the hearing committee's report, affirmed its factual findings and conclusions regarding rule violations (while clarifying some rule applications), and recommended disbarment and restitution to Ms. Ahmann and Ms. Hutchinson.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is disbarment the appropriate sanction for an attorney whose misconduct includes neglect of client matters, failure to communicate and refund unearned fees, purchasing a drug masking agent for a client and denying client drug use to a court, practicing law while ineligible, conviction for theft, and failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigations?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Douglas Kent Hall's cumulative misconduct, which demonstrates a knowing and intentional violation of duties owed to clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. The Court found that the factual allegations in the formal charges were deemed admitted because Hall failed to answer them, establishing violations including practicing law while ineligible, client neglect, failure to communicate, failure to account for/refund unearned fees, illegal conduct (theft), dishonesty toward a tribunal, obstruction of access to evidence, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations. The Court emphasized that Hall's misconduct caused actual harm and that his actions were knowing and intentional. Applying the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the Court determined the baseline sanction ranged from suspension to disbarment. Significant aggravating factors included a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding (by intentionally failing to comply with rules/orders of the disciplinary agency), and illegal conduct. While acknowledging mitigating factors such as the absence of a prior disciplinary record and the imposition of other penalties related to the theft conviction, the Court found these insufficient to outweigh the severe aggravating factors. Comparing Hall's conduct to prior jurisprudence, specifically 'In re: Jones,' which involved similar misconduct leading to disbarment, the Court concluded that disbarment was fully supported, particularly given Hall's selfish motive and indifference to making restitution to his clients.
Analysis:
This case underscores the Louisiana Supreme Court's stringent stance on attorney misconduct, particularly when it involves a pattern of dishonest, illegal, and neglectful behavior that undermines the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice. The Court's reliance on the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, coupled with a thorough consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors, provides a clear framework for future disciplinary actions. The ruling emphasizes that attorneys have an affirmative duty of candor to the tribunal and a responsibility to cooperate with disciplinary bodies, with severe consequences for systemic failures to uphold these duties. This case serves as a strong precedent for imposing disbarment for egregious, multi-faceted ethical breaches, even when some mitigating factors are present.
