In re Jefferson
| Decision Date | 01 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 2015–B–0508.,2015–B–0508. |
| Parties | In re William J. JEFFERSON. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, William J. Jefferson, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently on interim suspension based upon his conviction of a serious crime. In re: Jefferson, 09–2070 (La.10/14/09), 19 So.3d 455.
Respondent is a former member of the United States House of Representatives, representing the 2nd Congressional District in the State of Louisiana. In June 2007, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia handed up a sixteen-count indictment that charged respondent with using his position as a member of Congress to solicit bribes in exchange for promoting various business deals throughout Africa. Following a jury trial, respondent was conicted in August 2009 of eleven offenses—including conspiracy, wire fraud, bribery, money laundering, and racketeering—arising from his involvement in the schemes. In a decision rendered in March 2012, the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed respondent's conviction, except as to one count of wire fraud, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. United States v. Jefferson, 674 F.3d 332 (4th Cir.2012). In April 2012, respondent was sentenced to serve 156 months in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons, followed by three years of supervised release. In November 2012, the United States Supreme Court denied respondent's petition for a writ of certiorari. Jefferson v. United States, –––U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 648, 184 L.Ed.2d 482 (2012).
In December 2011, the ODC filed one count of formal charges against respondent, alleging that his conduct as set forth above violated Rules 8.4(a) (), 8.4(b) (), 8.4(c) (), and 8.4(d) () of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In May 2012, respondent was served with the formal charges, but he failed to file an answer. Accordingly, in April 2013, the factual allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence.
In April 2014, attorney Marcus Green enrolled as counsel of record on respondent's behalf. He also requested two extensions of time to file an answer to the formal charges, which the hearing committee chair granted; however, Mr. Green did not formally request that the deemed admitted order be recalled. In August 2014, Mr. Green filed on respondent's behalf a “Memorandum in Support of Mitigation of the Sanctions to be Imposed Against Respondent.” In this pleading, respondent admitted his criminal conviction but argued that permanent disbarment is an unduly harsh sanction. Rather, he suggested that in light of the numerous mitigating factors present, “a long-term suspension, covering the term of the sentence of Respondent would be appropriate, just and severe enough to vindicate the goals of the Louisiana State Bar Association.”
Following the filing by respondent, the matter was set for a hearing before the hearing committee on October 27, 2014. Neither party called witnesses to testify before the committee. Instead, the case was presented on documentary evidence and the memoranda of the parties. The parties also stipulated to the underlying facts of respondent's criminal conviction; however, respondent did not stipulate to the rule violations alleged in the formal charges.
The hearing committee determined that respondent has been convicted of a number of crimes, all of which are felonies and for which he is now in the custody of the United States Department of Corrections. His appeal of his conviction was affirmed in part and reversed in part by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and his application to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari was denied. Based on these findings, the committee concluded that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged in the formal charges. The committee found the applicable baseline sanction is disbarment.
In mitigation, the committee found that respondent has no prior disciplinary record. The committee did not specifically note any aggravating factors.
Considering respondent's misconduct in light of the permanent disbarment guidelines and the prior jurisprudence of this court, the committee recommended he be permanently disbarred.
Respondent filed an objection to the committee's report, asserting that the sanction recommended by the committee is too harsh.
After review, the disciplinary board determined the hearing committee's factual findings are supported by the record and do not appear to be manifestly erroneous. The board also agreed that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.
The board found that respondent intentionally violated duties owed to the public, the legal system, and the profession. His conduct caused significant harm to the public as he used his position in public office for personal gain. Furthermore, respondent caused serious harm to the reputation of the legal profession by engaging in bribery and corruption with the intent to gain personal financial benefits for himself and his family. The board determined the baseline sanction for ...
To continue reading
Request your trial