In re Charles R. Joiner

209 So. 3d 718 (La. 2015) · Supreme Court of Louisiana · December 8, 2015 · No. 2015-B-0959

Summary

The Supreme Court of Louisiana disciplined Charles R. Joiner for negligent supervision of a nonlawyer assistant and failures involving the safeguarding and timely restitution of client funds. The court imposed a 30-day suspension, followed by one year of supervised probation requiring trust-account training and quarterly audits, and assessed costs against him. Justice Clark concurred in part and dissented in part, favoring a public reprimand with probation.

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Jurisdiction
Louisiana
Decision date
December 8, 2015
Docket number
2015-B-0959
Procedural posture
Attorney disciplinary proceeding arising from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The Louisiana Supreme Court exercised original jurisdiction and independently reviewed the record after objections to the hearing committee and disciplinary board recommendations.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court independently reviews the record and determines whether misconduct was proven by clear and convincing evidence; factual findings of the hearing committee are reviewed under the manifest-error standard.
Precedential value
Published Louisiana Supreme Court per curiam opinion; precedential.
Parties
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Charles R. Joiner
Disposition
other

Topics

trust administrationtrustee dutiesbreach of trusttrusts

Practice areas

legal ethicsattorney disciplinetrust-account regulationprofessional responsibility

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Joiner negligently violated Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct 5.3 and 1.15 by failing to supervise his nonlawyer assistant and safeguard client funds.
  2. Whether Joiner’s failure to make prompt restitution after receiving funds from his embezzling assistant warranted an actual suspension rather than only a public reprimand.
  3. Whether the costs of the ODC’s audit and audit report should be assessed against Joiner.

Holdings

  1. A lawyer who has supervisory authority over a nonlawyer assistant handling client funds must make reasonable efforts to supervise that assistant and must take reasonable steps to safeguard client funds. Joiner’s failure to supervise his assistant and to maintain adequate trust-account procedures constituted negligent violations of Rules 5.3 and 1.15.
  2. Negligent supervision coupled with willful indifference to the obligation to make prompt restitution warrants an actual period of suspension. Joiner was suspended from practicing law for thirty days and placed on one year of supervised probation.
  3. The costs of the ODC’s audit and audit report may be assessed against the respondent when the respondent’s conduct necessitated their preparation.

Key quotations

Although respondent may have been victimized by his assistant’s improper actions, the ethical rules and jurisprudence of this court impose an overarching duty on the lawyer to safeguard the funds of the lawyer’s clients. (209 So. 3d at 724-725)
Under these circumstances, we conclude respondent’s negligent supervision of his nonlawyer assistant was coupled with a willful indifference toward his obligation to make prompt restitution to remedy the consequences of his negligence. (209 So. 3d at 725)

Factual background

Charles R. Joiner’s secretary embezzled funds, including client funds, and deposited some client settlement proceeds into Joiner’s operating account. Joiner failed to personally reconcile or adequately supervise his trust accounts, deposited portions of the secretary’s restitution into his operating and personal accounts before completing a full audit, and did not fully restore four clients’ funds until approximately three or four years later. The Supreme Court found that his negligent supervision and delayed restitution violated his duties to safeguard client funds.

Procedural history

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed formal charges in November 2013 alleging violations of Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15, 5.3(a)-(b), and 8.4(a). After a June 2014 formal hearing, the hearing committee recommended a public reprimand and two years of probation. The disciplinary board recommended a thirty-day suspension fully deferred, followed by one year of probation, trust-account education, and quarterly audits. The respondent and ODC objected, and the Supreme Court imposed a thirty-day suspension, one year of supervised probation, required trust-account education and quarterly audits, and assessed all costs.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…