Summary
The Louisiana Supreme Court considered disciplinary charges against attorney Robert W. Sharp for drafting an agreement intended to induce a criminal-case victim and witness to have charges dismissed in exchange for payment. The court found violations of professional-conduct rules governing assistance with criminal or fraudulent conduct and withdrawal from representation, and imposed a suspension of one year and one day.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Sharp violated Louisiana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(c) by assisting his client in a scheme to induce a criminal-case victim and witness to drop charges and withhold testimony in exchange for money.
- Whether Sharp violated Louisiana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(a) by continuing to represent Freeman after it became clear that the client intended to pursue an illegal act.
- What sanction was appropriate in light of the misconduct, its potential harm to the criminal justice system, and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Holdings
- Sharp violated Rule 1.2(c) by assisting his client in a scheme to induce the victim in the underlying criminal proceeding to drop the criminal charges in exchange for payment of money.
- Sharp violated Rule 1.16(a) by failing to withdraw from the representation once it became clear that his client intended to commit an illegal act.
- A suspension from the practice of law for one year and one day was the appropriate sanction.
Key quotations
“The record demonstrates that respondent assisted his client in a scheme to induce the victim in the underlying criminal proceeding to drop the criminal charges in exchange for payment of money.” (802 So. 2d at 592)
“Moreover, the notion that an attorney would assist a client in attempting to bribe a witness erodes public confidence in the criminal justice system and calls the entire legal profession into disrepute.” (802 So. 2d at 592)
Factual background
Robert W. Sharp represented Jeffrey Glenn Freeman in a Louisiana criminal prosecution for carnal knowledge of a juvenile. After Freeman's nephew offered the victim's mother $10,000 to persuade the district attorney to drop the charges, Sharp learned of the arrangement, warned Freeman that it was a bad idea, but nevertheless drafted a written agreement requiring payment in exchange for the victim and her daughter declining to testify and releasing criminal and civil claims. The agreement was never signed, but the victim acted as though it were operative, causing the assistant district attorney to consider a plea agreement before learning of the arrangement; the victim and her daughter ultimately testified, and Freeman was convicted.
Procedural history
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed formal charges alleging that Robert W. Sharp violated several Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct by drafting an agreement designed to induce a criminal-case victim and witness to cause charges to be dropped in exchange for money. The hearing committee and disciplinary board found violations of Rules 1.2(c) and 1.16(a), rejected the other alleged violations, and recommended a sixty-day suspension. Although neither party objected to the board's recommendation, the Supreme Court docketed the matter for briefing and argument and increased the sanction to one year and one day.