Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Amberg

Rule of Law:

An attorney may be disciplined for multiple instances of professional misconduct, including neglecting legal matters, failing to account for client funds, commingling funds, failing to communicate with clients, and failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigations, with the seriousness of the misconduct and any prior disciplinary actions serving as factors in determining the appropriate penalty.

Facts:

• In September 1984, Mr. and Mrs. Sevin hired Joseph B. Amberg, Jr. to handle their personal injury lawsuits.
• Amberg settled Mr. Sevin's claim for $31,500 in August 1985 and Mrs. Sevin's claim for $65,000 in September 1985, deducting attorney fees and medical expenses from the settlements, and disbursed net amounts to the Sevins.
• Despite deducting funds for medical expenses, Amberg failed to pay $2,068.43 in outstanding medical bills for the Sevins, and his trust account balance at times fell below the amount required to cover these expenses.
• In July 1985, Mrs. Pauline Betz hired Amberg for a medical malpractice action and paid him $350 in March 1986 to file for divorce; the divorce suit was filed but not completed due to an irregularity, and Amberg failed to inform Mrs. Betz of the malpractice claim's dismissal by a medical review panel in May 1987 or otherwise communicate with her.
• In March 1986, John Adams of Fleet Finance hired Amberg for a collection matter and paid a $265 retainer, but Amberg failed to perform the legal services, failed to communicate, and initially did not refund the retainer.
• In 1983, Mrs. Donaldson hired Amberg for an injury claim, paying $110 in February 1984; Amberg filed suit against the wrong entity (Jefferson Parish instead of the School Board), leading to its dismissal, and failed to inform Mrs. Donaldson of this dismissal.
• In May 1984, Mrs. Franklin hired Amberg for a malpractice case; she subsequently experienced difficulty reaching him, was informed by him that proceedings were filed and a medical review panel was pending, but later discovered no record of her case with the insurance commissioner, and Amberg refused to return her file.
• Amberg failed to respond to repeated requests from the Louisiana State Bar Association's Committee on Professional Responsibility regarding the complaints filed against him in these matters.

Procedural Posture:

• The Louisiana State Bar Association, through its Committee on Professional Responsibility, initiated three separate investigatory proceedings against Joseph B. Amberg, Jr., based on alleged misconduct in multiple client matters.
• The Committee held formal investigatory hearings for each proceeding (Sevin matter; Fleet Finance, Donaldson, Franklin matters; Betz matter) where Amberg was present and represented himself.
• Based on evidence from the hearings, the Committee unanimously found Amberg guilty of violating professional conduct laws and rules for all specifications in all three proceedings.
• Suits for disciplinary action against Amberg were instituted in the Supreme Court of Louisiana (88-B-1310, 89-B-0421, 89-B-0422).
• The Supreme Court appointed James G. Derbes and Harold J. Lamy as commissioners to take evidence and file reports.
• Commissioner Derbes held a hearing for case 88-B-1310, received additional documents from Amberg, and later filed a written report with findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommending a 1-2 year suspension.
• The Disciplinary Board concurred with Commissioner Derbes' findings and conclusions but opposed his recommendation for discipline.
• Commissioner Lamy held a hearing for cases 89-B-0421 and 89-B-0422 and subsequently filed written reports with findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommending a six-month suspension and return of costs.
• The Disciplinary Board concurred with Commissioner Lamy's findings and conclusions but opposed his recommendation for discipline.
• The Disciplinary Board moved for, and was granted, consolidation of the three proceedings for oral argument before the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
• In a brief to the Supreme Court, the Disciplinary Board recommended disbarment as the appropriate discipline.
• The matters were submitted to the Supreme Court for determination on the records before the commissioners after oral argument.