Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Mayeux

• Decision Date: 28 March 1966
• Docket Number: No. 47244,47244
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. Roy F. MAYEUX.

Page 537

184 So.2d 537

249 La. 7

LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. Roy F. MAYEUX.

No. 47244.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 28, 1966.

Walter G. Arnette, Jennings, A. K. Goff, Jr., Ruston, Pat W. Browne, Sr., A. Leon Hebert, Baton Rouge, James H. Drury Thomas O. Collins, Jr., New Orleans, for petitioner.

Roy F. Mayeux, in pro. per.

SUMMERS, Justice.

These proceedings for disbarment come within the exclusive original jurisdiction conferred upon this court by Article VII, Section 10 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921, as amended.

On October 23, 1963 the Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances of the Louisiana State Bar Association notified Roy F. Mayeux ¹ that it was undertaking an investigation of his conduct as a member of the Bar of Louisiana, with a view to determining whether he was guilty of violations of the laws of the State of Louisiana relating to the professional conduct of lawyers and to the practice of law, and whether he had been guilty of a wilful violation of the rules of professional ethics of sufficient gravity to evidence a lack of moral fitness for the practice of law.

In the notice the Committee set forth eleven specifications, which, in their opinion, involved unethical and improper conduct by Mayeux.

By this notice, as required by the rules governing the Committee's procedure, ² Mayeux was advised that he would be given full opportunity to defend himself before the Committee.

On November 11, 1963, the day appointed for the hearing, Mayeux appeared, presented witnesses and documentary evidence, cross-examined the Committee's witnesses and made a statement for the record in mitigation of the charges lodged against him.

As a result of the hearing on the specifications, the Committee unanimously concluded that Mayeux was guilty of serious professional misconduct. Accordingly, in April 1964 a petition was addressed to this court, accompanied by a transcript of the hearing of November 11, 1963, praying that a commissioner be appointed to take evidence, and, in due course, report to this court his findings of fact and conclusions of law and that, ultimately, Mayeux be disbarred.

Mayeux filed an answer to this petition in which he denied that he had been convicted of any violation of the laws of the State of Louisiana of sufficient gravity to warrant his disbarment, or that he was guilty of such wilful violations of the rules of professional ethics as to evidence on his part a lack of moral fitness for the practice of law. He denied that he was guilty of 'misconduct as set forth in the specifications.'

Issue having been joined, ³ Honorable Richard C. Meaux, attorney at law of the Lafayette Louisiana Bar, was appointed Commissioner to take the evidence and to report his findings of fact and conclusion of law to this court. In time the Commissioner held a hearing on June 4, 1965, wherein respondent Mayeux appeared and sought a continuance which was denied. He presented no evidence at this hearing. The transcript of the evidence previously taken at the hearing on November 11, 1963 was filed in the record of the Commissioner's hearing and constitutes all of the evidence at this latter proceeding relating to the charges against respondent.

The Commissioner then filed in this court an exhaustive, carefully prepared and able report in which he analyzed the law and facts most thoroughly. His conclusion was that respondent was guilty of failure to faithfully and honestly discharge his professional and legal duty to report, account for and remit the monies of his clients that he issued various N.S.F. checks; failed to pay the salary of his law office employee; that he converted the property of his clients; commingled money of his clients with his own and used the funds for his own purposes. It was the Commissioner's recommendation that respondent be disbarred. The Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances concurred in the report.

Respondent filed no exceptions to the Commissioner's report, and it stands confirmed. Articles of Incorporation of Louisiana State Bar Association, art. 13, § 9; Louisiana State Bar Association v. Wheeler, 243 La. 618, 145 So.2d 774 (1962).

Moreover, respondent filed no brief, and he made no appearance in person or through counsel at the hearing before this court on January 18, 1966. Under these circumstances it may be proper to conclude that respondent has abandoned his opposition. However, in view of the grave consequences of disbarment to the party involved, we must carefully review the entire record of these proceedings. We have reviewed the record and are in substantial agreement with the Commissioner on all specifications save one; and, accordingly, we approve the Commissioner's recommendation.

The Commissioner found that the Committee had failed to prove the charges contained in Specification Nos. 1, 5 and 11. As the Committee, in its brief to this court, accepts the findings of the Commissioner relative to these unproven specifications, we need not refer to them here.

In Specification No. 2 it is charged that on August 11, 1962 respondent negotiated his check as attorney at law and received the sum of $25 cash. The check was returned to the payee by the drawer bank because there were insufficient funds in respondent's account. Despite repeated formal demands respondent refused, failed and neglected to make the check good until more than one month had elapsed--after the matter was reported to the Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances. This charge is supported by the evidence.

Specification No. 3 charges that respondent represented Bobby L. Durham in a personal injury claim. Respondent received a check in the sum of $1,675 in compromise of that claim made payable to him and his client. It is further alleged that the client did not endorse the check despite the fact that it bears what purports to be his signature, and respondent has never accounted to his client for that portion of the compromise settlement belonging to the client.

This charge is not entirely correct, and our review of the evidence permits a conclusion that the endorsement of the client's signature to the check was authorized. Though respondent did belatedly account to the client for a portion of the amount of the compromise settlement, because he had diverted his client's funds to his own use, it was necessary for him to give his promissory note for slightly more than $900 for the balance. The full amount of this balance had not been paid at the time of the hearing, though more than three years had elapsed since the settlement was made. This delay may be attributed in part to the forbearance of the client, induced by the friendly relations which existed between them; however, the attorney's wilful and unprofessional conduct violated an important canon governing the position of trust which an attorney occupies in relation to his client. That canon is, in part, to the effect that,

'The lawyer shall refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client.

'Money of the client or collected for the client or other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer shall be reported and accounted for promptly, and should not under any circumstances be commingled with his own or be used by him.' Articles of Incorporation of Louisiana State Bar Association, art. 14, § 11.

The facts established, though not in strict conformity with the charge, are nonetheless sufficient to support grave violations of professional conduct. Louisiana State Bar Association v. Wheeler, 243 La. 618, 145 So.2d 774 (1962); Louisiana State Bar Association v. Pitcher, 238 La. 649, 116 So.2d 281 (1959).

Specification No. 4 charges that respondent did not pay his secretary her wages, and it was necessary for her to institute suit and obtain judgment. The judgment had not been paid at the time of the hearing. The evidence supports the charge. As the Commissioner observed, failure of an attorney to pay his lawful obligations injures his reputation and brings disrepute upon the profession as a whole.

Specification No. 6 charges that in November 1962 respondent was employed through a New Orleans...