Summary
The Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed disciplinary proceedings against Flitcher R. Bell, who pleaded guilty to federal bribery and conspiracy charges arising from a scheme to fix criminal and traffic matters in Baton Rouge City Court. The court permanently disbarred Bell, revoked his license, and prohibited his readmission based on intentional corruption of the judicial process and felony malfeasance in office.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Bell's federal bribery and conspiracy convictions warranted professional discipline.
- Whether the seriousness and circumstances of Bell's misconduct justified permanent disbarment rather than a lesser sanction.
Holdings
- When attorney disciplinary proceedings involve an attorney convicted of a crime, the conviction is conclusive evidence of guilt, and the issues before the court are whether the crimes warrant discipline and, if so, the extent of the discipline.
- Permanent disbarment is the appropriate sanction for an attorney who, while serving as a prosecutor, engages in a multiyear bribery scheme to fix matters pending in the court where the attorney works, resulting in felony convictions.
Key quotations
“When the disciplinary proceedings involve an attorney who has been convicted of a crime, the conviction is conclusive evidence of guilt and the sole issue presented is whether respondent’s crimes warrant discipline, and if so, the extent thereof.” (827)
“Based on this reasoning, we find permanent disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this case.” (828)
Factual background
Flitcher R. Bell, a senior prosecutor at the Baton Rouge City Court, pleaded guilty to federal charges arising from a multiyear conspiracy to solicit and accept bribes in exchange for dismissing or otherwise fixing criminal and traffic matters. The scheme operated from 2006 to 2009 and included accepting cash to dismiss a criminal charge against an undercover FBI agent. Bell was already subject to an interim suspension based on his conviction of a serious crime.
Procedural history
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed formal charges alleging violations of Rules 8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d) based on respondent's federal bribery convictions. Respondent failed to answer, so the allegations were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence under Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). The hearing committee and disciplinary board each recommended permanent disbarment, and neither respondent nor the ODC objected. The Supreme Court of Louisiana accepted the recommendation.