Monroe Dispatch - No Struggle, No Progress

One may think of lawyers in general during times when we might need one. They are essential to ensuring our rights are protected when one has to go through civil or criminal cases. Lawyers, like judges, are held to the highest standards to ensure they perform their duties with honor and integrity. I’m no lawyer, but I can appreciate them for what they do.

A few years back, a case involving a lawyer who practices in Louisiana was brought to my attention. This case was about more than just his legal skills, but rather about how he conducts himself when he is not in the courtroom. According to lasc.org, which is the website of the Louisiana Supreme Court, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel had to take action against a lawyer who engaged in conduct that led to disciplinary proceedings. The incident stemmed from a situation where the lawyer and a businessman, who had known each other, found themselves on opposite ends of a legal dispute that didn't end well for either of them. The businessman had hired the lawyer's son to work for him part-time. One day, the son was late for work, and the businessman texted the lawyer to inquire about his son's whereabouts by asking for his number.

Instead of responding professionally, the lawyer sent a text filled with abusive, insulting, and racial language. The text read, "You're f---k—g kidding me. You don’t have his f---k—g number? You, your life, your family, and your business is more f---k-d up as a n-----er’s checkbook. Your staff wants to quit. You can’t communicate with people, and you’re a manic depressive. Your passive-aggressive daughter is equally stupid. I’ll return your documents Tuesday.” The businessman replied saying, “You will be ok. Don’t talk about my family.’’

The lawyer shot back, saying, “I will come beat your ass right now,” to which the businessman replied, “Whatever.” Would you believe that, according to the website, the two individuals’ families had been friends for a long time? Ouch! True enough, the lawyer did go to the businessman’s place and cause bodily harm and injuries to him. The lawyer had to pay $6,186.00 for his medical expenses and $50,000 in general damages to the businessman. A police report was made because there were witnesses to the attack, and the lawyer was charged with battery. The text messages were obtained through a disciplinary investigation where it was alleged that the lawyer tried to get the businessman to change his story by providing false information. The lawyer was charged with violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, he was charged with violating Rules 8.4(c) (violation of the rules of Professional Conduct), 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer), and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). At the conclusion of the proceedings, the lawyer, after defending himself, was suspended from practicing law for “one year and one day” with sixty days deferred, subject to a two-year probation period followed by numerous stipulations to justify his return to practice. There was no clear-cut decision, as there was dissent that the lawyer violated Rule 8.4(c).

There were other reasons given for the severity or lack of the suspension, but if the decision was all about conduct that “reflects adversely” on the fitness of a lawyer, why wasn’t anything mentioned about the racial slur uttered by the lawyer? What about his “professional conduct” when words that are racist and insulting to people of color were not questioned? The n-word was clearly used by a practicing attorney in a conversation that had absolutely nothing to do with people of color. There was no mention of “sensitivity training” stipulated in the conditions that the lawyer had to complete before returning to practice. The conversation was about the whereabouts of the lawyer’s son, but even when Black people are not involved, somehow, we end up in the conversation. Those who passed judgment on the lawyer let that omission from their decision slip by them. The intent is not to give lawyers a bad rap; it goes back to the high standards that lawyers should be held to, but the standards are there for a reason. Perhaps that lawyer was having a “bad” day. So, the next time a lawyer asks you for a hug, give them one. You never know, they might need it. Gobble, gobble.