In Re: Akello Patrice Dangerfield

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 14, 2020
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: AKELLO PATRICE DANGERFIELD
No.2020-B-00116
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 14, 2020
Permanent disbarment imposed. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., would order disbarment.
Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
WJC
BJJ
JLW
SJC
JTG
JHB
05/14/2020 "See News Release 017 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

05/17/20
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2
020-B-0116
I
N RE: AKELLO PATRICE DANGERFIELD
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Akello Patrice Dangerfield, an
attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently ineligible to practice.1
FO
RMAL CHARGES
Kenneth and Paula Laborde retained respondent to represent their company,
TekCrete, Inc., in connection with a claim for losses resulting from the BP oil spill.
Respondent accepted the representation for a 15% contingency fee.
In December 2016, the Labordes were awarded $505,882.94 for their
TekCrete claim. The Labordes were pleased with this amount a nd did not wish to
seek an appeal. Respondent received the funds from BP on March 7, 2017. Her
15% contingency fee totaled $75,882.44, leaving the sum of $430,000.50 due to
TekCrete.
Respondent did not inform the Labordes that she had received TekCrete’s
funds, and when they asked her about the funds, respondent denied that she had
already received them. The Labordes finally reviewed an online status report
regarding their claim and learned that respondent had already received the funds.
1 On June 29, 2018, respondent was declared ineligible to practice law for failing to comply with
mandatory continuing legal education requirements. She is also ineligible for failing to pay bar
dues and the disciplinary assessment.

2

On April 2 7, 2017, the Labordes met with respondent. At that time,
respondent attempted to renegotiate her employment contract, seeking to receive a
higher percentage of TekCrete’s recovery as her fee. The Labordes refused to agree
to alter the contract. Respondent then disclosed to the Labordes that she had received
the BP funds, but had already spent a significant portion of the funds and had only
$303,000 left to disburse to TekCrete. On that day, respondent paid the Labordes
$303,000. She agreed to give them the balance of $127,000.50 within ninety days.
Following the expiration of the delay, respondent still did not disburse the remaining
funds. The Labordes advised respondent that they were hiring an attorney to collect
the remaining funds. In September 2017, the Labordes filed a complaint against
respondent with the ODC.
In November 2017, respondent gave a sworn statement to the ODC.
Respondent admitted during the sworn statement that after she received TekCrete’s
funds, she paid $100,000 to another individual as a referral fee. Respondent
conceded she did this without t he Labordes’ authorization or knowledge.
Respondent has yet to repay the Labordes any portion of the $127,000.50 she owes.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In September 2018, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging
that her conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional
Conduct: Rules 1.15(a) (a lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that
is in a lawyer’s possession in co nnection with a representation separate from the
lawyer’s own property), 1.15(d) (failure to timely remit funds to a client or third
person), 8.4(a) (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), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,

3

or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice).2
Respondent failed to answer the formal charges. Accordingly, the factual
allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and
convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). No formal
hearing was held, but the parties were given an opportunity to file with the hearing
committee written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue of sanctions.
In its submission, the ODC argued that the appropriate sanction for
respondent’s misconduct is permanent disbarment. In support, the ODC asserted
that Guideline 6 of the permanent disbarment guidelines, pertaining to “insurance
fraud, including but not limited to staged accidents or widespread runner -based
solicitation,” is applicable in light of respondent’s admission that she disbursed a
large portion of TekCrete’s funds to another individual as a referral fee. Respondent
filed nothing for the hearing committee’s consideration.

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the ODC’s submission, the hearing committee accepted that
the factual allegations contained in the formal charges were deemed admitte d upon
respondent’s failure to file an answer. Based on those facts, the committee
determined that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in
the formal charges.
The committee determined that respondent violated duties owed to her client,
the public, and the legal profession. She acted intentionally and without regard for
the consequences. With full understanding of the import of her actions, respondent

2 The ODC did not allege that respondent violated either Rule 7.4(a) (solicitation) or 7.2(c)(13) (a
lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services) of the
Rules of Professional Conduct.

4

willfully converted over $120,000 in client funds and then made no meaningful
attempt to restore these funds to the rightful owners thereof. She knowingly and
deliberately converted the settlement funds without her client’s knowledge. S he
misrepresented to her cl ient that she had not received the funds and improperly
distributed portions to a non -lawyer associate. She admitted to the theft and
promised to restore the funds, to no avail. Her conversion of the funds, for which
restitution has not been made, caused her client direct, significant, and actual harm.
Her conduct also tarnished the image of the legal profession in the eyes of her clients
and in the eyes of the public.
After considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , the
committee determined the baseline sanction is disbarment. The committee noted,
however, that the seriousness of respondent’s actions and the extent of the harm
caused to the client warrant additional sanctions beyond the baseline
recommendation.
The committee determined that the following aggravating factors are present:
a dishonest or selfish motive and substantial experience in the practice of law
(admitted 1996). The committee determined that the following mitigating factors
are present: absence of a prior disciplinary record and full and free disclosure to the
disciplinary board and a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings.
After considering respondent’s conduct in light of the court’s prior
jurisprudence addressing similar misconduct, the committee recomm ended
respondent be permanently disbarred.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the committee’s report.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation
After review, the disciplinary board acknowledged that the factual allegations
in the formal charges were deemed admitted and proven. The board also made an

5

additional factual finding that the exact amount owed to TekCrete is $127,000.50.
The board then determined that the legal conclusions of the hearing committee are
supported by the factual allegations asserted in the formal charges and by the
evidence submitted in support of the allegations. Based on those findings, the board
agreed with the committee that respondent violated the Rules of Professional
Conduct as charged. The board addressed each alleged rule violation as follows:
Respondent violated Rule 1.15(a) by converting $127,000.50 in funds owed
to TekCrete and by not keeping these funds in her trust account.
Respondent violated Rule 1.15(d) by failing to promptly notify the Labordes
that she had received the settlement funds from BP and by failing to promptly deliver
the funds to TekCrete.
Respondent violated Rule 8.4(b) by converting $127,000.50 owed to
TekCrete. In 2018, respondent was charged in Orleans Parish Criminal District
Court with theft in excess of $1,500 in violation of La. R.S. 14:67(B)(1). She also
violated La. R.S. 37:219, which makes it “ unlawful for any attorney to pay money
or give any other thing of value to any person for the purpose of obtaining
representation of any client.”
Respondent violated Rule 8.4(c) by converting the funds owed to TekCrete,
thereby engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct.
Respondent violated Rule 8.4(d) by converting funds owed to her client and
initially misrepresenting to the Labordes that the funds had not been received,
impeding the settlement of a claim in the BP claims process.
Respondent violated Rule 8.4(a) by violating the rules as set forth above.
The board determined that respondent violated duties owed to her client, the
public, the legal system, and the legal profession. She acted intentionally. Her
misconduct caused actual harm to her client and the legal profession. By converting
$127,000.50 in client funds, for which restitution has not been made and for which

6

no meaningful payment arrangements have been established, respondent caused her
client direct, significant, and actual harm. Her conduct has also tarnished the image
of the legal profession. After considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing
Lawyer Sanctions, the board determined that the baseline sanction is disbarment.
The board adopted the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the hearing
committee. In addition, the board found the presence of the mitigating factor of
personal problems. Respondent testified in her sworn statement that during the time
of the misconduct, she was caring for her mother, who died after a long illness.
After considering respondent’s conduct in light of the permanent disbarment
guidelines as well as the court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar misconduct,
the board recommended respondent be permanently disbarred. The board also
recommended that she be ordered to make restitution to TekCrete in the amount of
$127,000.50. The board further recommended that she be assessed with the costs
and expenses of these proceedings.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the board’s
recommendation.

DISCUSSION
Bar disciplinary matters fall within the original jurisdiction of this court. La.
Const. art. V, § 5(B). Consequently, we act as triers of fact and conduct an
independent review of the record to determine whether the alleged misconduct has
been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re: Banks, 09-1212 (La. 10/2/09),
18 So. 3d 57.
In cases in which the lawyer does not answer the formal charges, the factual
allegations of those charges are deemed admitted. Supr eme Court Rule XIX, §
11(E)(3). Thus, the ODC bears no additional burden to prove the factual allegations
contained in the formal charges after those cha rges have been deemed admitted.

7

However, the language of § 11(E)(3) does not encompass legal conclusions that flow
from the factual allegations. If the legal conclusion the ODC seeks to prove (i.e., a
violation of a specific rule) is not readily apparent from the deemed admitted facts,
additional evidence may need to be submitted in order to prove the legal conclusions
that flow from the admitted factual allegations. In re: Donnan , 01 -3058 (La.
1/10/03), 838 So. 2d 715.
The record in this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent
converted $127,000.50 in client funds. This misconduct is a violation of the Rules
of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.
Having found evidence of professional misconduct, we now turn to a
determination of the appropriate sanction for respondent’s actions. In determining
a sanction, we are mindful that disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain
high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession,
and deter future misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So. 2d 1173
(La. 1987). The discipline to be imposed depends upon the facts of each case and
the seriousness of the offenses involved considered in light of any aggravating and
mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So. 2d 520
(La. 1984).
Respondent’s conduct was intentional. In acting as she did, she violated duties
owed to her client, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession, causing
actual harm. The baseline sanction for this type of misconduct is disbarment. The
record supports the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the disciplinary
board.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the board has concluded that
respondent’s offenses are so egregious that she should be permanently disbarred. In
support, the board cites Guideline 6 of the permanent disbarment guidelines, but
acknowledges that “the conduct at issue may not fall squarely within” this guideline.

8

The board is correct that Guideline 6 does not strictly apply here.
Respondent’s conduct does not involve insurance fraud, as there is no indication of
any misconduct relating to the settlement of TekCrete’s BP claim. Furthermore,
although respondent admits she paid a referral fee to a third person for her BP cases,
there is no information in the record to suggest how many cases are at issue.
Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether respondent’s conduct involved
widespread runner-based solicitation, as contemplated by Guideline 6.
Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear that the permanent disbarment guidelines
are not intended to bind our decision-making process. In re: Minor , 12-1006 (La.
10/16/12), 100 So. 3d 319. Regardless of the fact that respondent’s misconduct may
not definitively fit any of the specific permanent disbarment guidelines, her conduct
demonstrates a clear lack of moral fitness. Her behavior continues to cause great
harm to her client and tarnish the image of the legal profession. In order to protect
the public and maintain the high standards of the legal profession in this state, we
find respondent should not be allowed th e opportunity to return to the practice of
law in the future.
Accordingly, we will adopt the board’s recommendation and permanently
disbar respondent.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee
and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Akello Patrice
Dangerfield, Louisiana Bar R oll number 24365, be and s he hereby is permanently
disbarred. Her name shall be stricken fr om the roll of attorneys and her license to
practice law in the State of Louisiana shall be revoked. Pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule XIX, § 24(A), it is further ordered that respondent be permanently prohibited
from being readmitted to th e practice of law in this state. It is further ordered that

9

respondent shall pay restitution of $127,000.50 plus legal interest to TekCrete, Inc.
All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance
with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days
from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.