In re Novo

• Decision Date: 03 February 1941
• Docket Number: 36012
• Citation: 200 So. 466,196 La. 1072
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: In re NOVO

200 So. 466

196 La. 1072

In re NOVO

No. 36012

Supreme Court of Louisiana

February 3, 1941

Exception overruled.

Benjamin Y. Wolf, Chairman, and Frank W. Hart, both of New Orleans Charles A. McCoy, of Lake Charles, and Eugene A. Conway, Jr. of Baton Rouge, for Supreme Court Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances.

Hollingsworth B. Barret, of Shreveport, member, recused.

PONDER Justice. O'NIELL, C. J., and LAND, J., take no part.

OPINION

PONDER, Justice.

This is a disbarment proceeding in which the defendant has interposed an exception of no cause of action.

The misconduct alleged to be the basis of the action for defendant's disbarment is contained in articles 5 to 9 inclusive of the petition which read as follows:

"V. That from the records secured from the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Louisiana, it appears that since his admission to the bar, the defendant has demeaned himself in a manner inconsistent and at variance with the oath subscribed by him as an attorney at law, has disregarded the ethics duties and obligations of a lawyer which he assumed as a member of the bar, by reason whereof he should be disbarred from further practice of his profession in the State of Louisiana.

"VI. That after reading the record hereinabove referred to, your committee is of the opinion that probable cause for disbarment exists against the defendant, Lee J. Novo, and that he has committed acts involving the misconduct of a member of the Bar.

"VII. Your committee believes after reading the record above referred to that the defendant violated his duty to his client, and his associate attorney, in matters entitled:

"(1) Rev. A. Cliff Searcy vs. Lee J. Novo -- #5879 Docket Court of Appeal Second Circuit [188 So. 490] -- #35,318 Docket Supreme Court.

"(2) T.H. McGregor vs. Lee J. Novo -- #27,086 and #27,091 Docket Ninth Judicial District Court Rapides Parish, La. -- #5880 Docket Court of Appeal Second Circuit [188 So. 480] -- #35,319 Docket Supreme Court of Louisiana.

"And the charges of misconduct are supported by the following documents and records, which are attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes:

"1. Affidavit of A. Cliff Searcy, et als.

"2. Opinion of Trial Court in Suit No. 27,091 T. H. McGregor vs. Lee J. Novo

"3. Opinion of Trial Court in Suit No. 27,086 Rev. A. Cliff Searcy vs. Lee J. Novo

"4. Copy of transcript of testimony in suit No. 27,086, Rev. A. Cliff Searcy vs. Lee J. Novo

"5. Statement of T. F. Hunter, Attorney

" 6. Statement of Cleveland Dear, Attorney

"7. Statement of T. H. McGregor, together with correspondence and briefs.

"That the defendant in the above matters violated his duty to his client by compelling him to accept a settlement under a contingent fee contract at variance with the terms of said contract, and the said client was forced to institute suit and prosecute the same to final conclusion in the court of last resort in order to obtain payment of the funds illegally retained by his counsel.

"That in making settlement with his client, the Rev. A. Cliff Searcy, of the amount collected on the judgment obtained by Searcy against Interurban Transportation Company, Inc., et als., defendant, in support of a deduction of Four Hundred ($ 400.00) Dollars, in connection with the expenses of the prosecution of said suit, made the statement to Rev. Searcy in the presence of witnesses that he, Novo, paid the Supreme Court Four Hundred ($ 400.00) Dollars at the time he presented an application to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, in the proceedings by Searcy against the Inter urban Transportation Company, Inc., et als.

"That defendant totally disregarded his duty and his contract with his associate counsel, T. H. McGregor, Esq., in the prosecution of Rev. Searcy's suit against the Interurban Transportation Company, Inc., et als., and upon being sued by McGregor for McGregor's share of the contingent fee in said case, undertook to defend his course of action by stating in open court that McGregor solicited employment in the case with the representation that he, McGregor, had influence with the Court of Appeal, McGregor being a former Judge of the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, to which court...