Clerk of Court For the Court In Re: Nicholas Anthony Bellard

The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
Clerk of Court
For the Court
IN RE: NICHOLAS ANTHONY BELLARD
No.2020-B-00761
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 04, 2020
Disbarment imposed. See per curiam.
WJC
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
JHB
Johnson, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Supreme Court of Louisiana
November 04, 2020
11/04/2020 "See News Release 042 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

11/04/20
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2
020-B-0761
I
N RE: NICHOLAS ANTHONY BELLARD
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Nicholas Anthony Bellard, an
attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently ineligible to practice.1
FO
RMAL CHARGES
Count I
Between January 2013 and April 2016, the ODC received sixteen overdraft
and/or insufficient fund notices from Farmer’s State Bank and Trust Company
regarding respondent’s client trust account. Accordingly, the matters were opened
for investigation . An audit was performed by Angelina Marcellino, the ODC’s
forensic auditor, who reviewed and analyzed trust account transactions that occurred
between August 2012 and April 2016, at which time respondent closed his trust
account with a zero balance. The audit report reveals the extent of respondent’s
misuse of his trust account, which includes the commingling and conversion of client
and third-party funds.
2
1 On June 29, 2018, respondent was declared ineligible to practice law for failure to comply with
the mandatory continuing legal education requirements. He is also ineligible to practice law for
failure to pay his bar dues and the disciplinary assessment.
2 In her report dated April 18, 2017, the auditor provided a detailed analysis of the trust account
activity regarding each client or subject matter. She noted that in some matters, it could not be
determined if all parties were paid appropriately or if there are any outstanding obligations due
clients or third parties. She noted in other matters that no HUD statement, set tlement statement,
invoices, or client agreements were provided. In the report, she stated:

2

In her report, the auditor sets forth a detailed analysis of trust account activity
in more than fifty matters. The following are just a few examples of this misuse.
The audit identified several deposits to the trust account that could not be
matched to specific disbursements from the trust account.
• In March 2014, deposits totaling $42,850 were made to the account from
Kryton Environmental Services; however, no associated disbursements were
identified.
• On December 18, 2013, a $14,014 deposit was made to the account and
identified with Pam and Michael Grotefend; however, no associated
disbursements were identified.
The audit identified several disbursements to the trust account that could not
be matched to specific deposits to the trust account.
• Two disbursements totaling $25,000 were made to Mario Figueiredo;
however, no associated deposits were identified. Respondent failed to provide
any documentation regarding these disbursements.
• A $5,000 disbursement was made to Susan Goss. Respondent asserted that
the disbursement represented a full refund of attorney ’s fees to Ms. Goss;
however, no associated deposits were identified. Respondent failed to provide
any client agreement for Ms. Goss.
• Disbursements totaling $48,000 were identified as proceeds from a sale of
property located at Lourdes Road, and no associated deposits were identified.

[Respondent] did not complete reconciliations or maintain account
ledgers for the audit period and no supporting documentation was
provided for several transactions during the period. Due to the lack
of information provided an appropriate amount to be held in trust at
the end of the period to honor all client and third party liabilities
cannot be determined. However multiple occurrences of
insufficient funds have been identified during the period when client
or third party money should have been available in trust and several
client or third party disbursements have been identified as paid in
full . . . by the end of the audit period when the trust was closed with
a zero balance.

3

• The audit identified disbursements totaling $72,314 made payable to “cash.”
The audit revealed other acts of commingling and conversion by respondent.
For example, in the Freddie Richard matter, a $151,189.76 deposit was made to the
trust account and identified with Mr. Richard, while a $150,332.74 disbursement
was made from the a ccount to Mr. Richard. Among other errors, a $400 payment
due to a third party and a $475 payment due to respondent were not identified as
being paid within the audit period or subsequent to the closing of the trust account.
Respondent provided no docum entation or explanation for the identified
misuses in order to determine if deposited funds were disbursed correctly or if there
were any unpaid obligations to clients or third parties. Respondent’s lack of record
keeping made it impossible to quantify the actual harm to clients and third parties.
In a sworn statement to the ODC, respondent admitted that he stopped keeping
any accounting of his trust account. Respondent also admitted to transferring money
from his trust account to former clients for matters unrelated to any litigation, despite
knowing that these transfers were violations of the trust accounting rules.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.5 (failure to re fund an unearned fee)
and 1.15 (safekeeping property of clients or third persons).

Count II
Martin Guillory, on behalf of the Mire Branch Water Corporation, paid
respondent $1,900
3 to file suit against a water meter company and $1,250 to file suit
against a former employee of the corporation. Respondent failed to perform any

3 This amount appears to be based on Mr. Guillory’s testimony provided at his sworn statement
that “… I think it’s around 19 hundred dollars that he took from us and have not performed any
duties for it.” In the complaint, however, Mr. G uillory indicated that he paid respondent $1,730
for one matter and $1,250 for the other matter. Notably, the record contains copies of two checks
in the amounts of $1,730 and $1,250, both payable to respondent.

4

work in either matter, requiring Mr. Guillory to hire subsequent counsel to file suit.
Mr. Guillory repeatedly attempted to contact respondent to inquire about the matters,
but respondent did not reply to Mr. Guillory’s requests for information. Respondent
did not return any of the fees that were paid to him by Mr. Guillory.
In October 2016, the ODC sent respondent notice of the complaint via
certified mail, but the mail was returned as undeliverable. Correspondence was then
sent to respondent in December 2016 and again in January 2017, but he did not reply.
On February 22, 2017, respondent signed for and received a hand-delivered copy of
the complaint, but he has not offered a written response to the complaint.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with
a client), 1.16 (obligations upon termination of the representation), 3.2 (failure to
make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the
ODC in its investigation), and 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules o f Professional
Conduct).

Count III
Frank J. Vautrot, Jr. hired respondent to file a lawsuit on his behalf. Mr.
Vautrot paid respondent in excess of $1,500 4 to pursue the action, but respondent
failed to perform any work. Mr. Vautrot repeatedly attempted to contact respondent
to inquire about his case, only to be told repeatedly that respondent was “working
on it.” Respondent eventually stopped responding to Mr. Vautrot, prompting Mr.
Vautrot to go to respondent’s father’s house to inquire about responde nt’s
whereabouts. Respondent’s father called r espondent, and after r espondent

4 In the complaint, Mr. Vautrot indicated that he gave respondent a check for $470 and a check for
$1,500, and copies of the two checks are contained in the record.

5

answered, Mr. Vautrot was handed the phone. During the call, respondent promised
to give Mr. Vautrot some paperwork about his case that day. Respondent failed to
do as promise d and never contacted Mr. Vautrot again. Respondent effectively
abandoned the representation and returned none of the fees that were paid.
During his sworn statement, respondent stated that after he filed the suit for
Mr. Vautrot, the case was transferred to a different venue due to the justice of the
peace becoming ill. Respondent offered no documents to support this assertion. The
ODC asked respondent to provide a written response to the complaint. Despite his
assurance under oath that he would do so, he failed to comply with this request.
On April 4, 2017, respondent was forwarded a copy of the initial complaint.
Although respondent signed for and received the complaint, he has not offered a
written response to same.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 3.2, 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In September 2018, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent.
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. Respondent
filed nothing for the hearing committee’s consideration.

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the ODC’s deemed admitted submission, the hearing
committee determined that the factual allegations in the formal charges were deemed

6

admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence. Based on these facts, the
committee determined that r espondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct
as charged. The committee addressed the alleged rule violations as follows:
Respondent’s knowing, if not intentional, failure to perform services for his
clients and failure to return unearned fees to h is clients is in violation of Rules 1.3,
1.4, 1.16, and 3.2. His knowing, if not intentional, conversion of client funds,
commingling of trust account funds, and misuse of his client trust account are in
violation of Rules 1.5 and 1.15. His knowing, if not intentional, refusal to submit a
written response to the complaints in Count II and Count III, despite numerous
attempts to request same, is in violation of Rule 8.1(c).
The committee determined that respondent violated duties owed to his clients,
the public, and the legal profession. He intentionally violated duties owed to clients
by misusing his client trust account, which resulted in the comingling and conversion
of funds, and his abandonment of the representation caused actual harm to his clients.
His lack of record keeping makes it impossible to quantify the actual harm to clients
and third parties, but the potential for very serious harm is apparent from the audit
report. He likely caused actual harm to clients and/or third parties in Count I,
although no evidence was introduced showing same; however, the potential for very
serious harm was apparent from the audit report. He caused actual harm to the
clients in Counts II and III by failing to refund unearned fees. In Count II, he failed
to perform the work for which he was hired, requiring the client to hire subsequent
counsel. In Count III, he failed to provide his client with proof that he performed
the work for which he was hired. His repeated failure to respond to the ODC and
cooperate with the ODC caused actual harm to the legal profession by forcing the
ODC to unnecessarily expend its limited resources in the investigation of this matter.
After considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions and
Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, 486 So. 2d 116 (La. 1986), wherein the court

7

established baseline sanctions for conversion of client funds, the committee
determined the baseline sanction ranges from a lengthy suspension to disbarment.
The committee found the following aggrav ating factors present: multiple offenses,
bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to
comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, and indifference to
making restitution. The committee also considered respondent’s failure to cooperate
with the ODC’s investigations to be an aggravating factor. The committee found no
mitigating factors present.
After further considering the court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the committee recommende d respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for three years. The committee also recommended respondent be
ordered to pay restitution to his clients and refund to them any unearned fees. The
committee further recommended that respondent be assesse d with the costs and
expenses of these proceedings.5
The ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s report.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation
After review, the disciplinary board adopted the hearing committee’s finding
that the factual allegations in the formal charges were deemed admitted and proven
by clear and convincing evidence . The board then determined that the legal
conclusions of the committee are supported by the factual allegations asserted in the
formal charges and/or by the evidence submitted in support of the allegations. Based
on these findings, the board determined respondent violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct. The board addressed each alleged rule violation as follows:

5 One committee member concurred but noted that disba rment would not be unreasonable
considering the aggravating factors present and the lack of mitigating factors.

8

Rule 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable d iligence and promptness in
representing a client) – In Count II, respondent was hired to file two lawsuits for his
client, and by failing to file either suit, he violated Rule 1.3. In Count III, respondent
was hired to file a lawsuit for his client, and despite assurances to the client that he
was “working on it,” he failed to do so, in violation of Rule 1 3.
Rule 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client) – In Count II, the client
attempted to contact respondent several times about the underlying litiga tion, and
respondent did not reply to the client’s requests for information, in violation of Rule
1.4. In Count III, respondent initially communicated with the client, but he
eventually stopped doing so, in violation of Rule 1.4.
Rules 1.5 (failure to refund an unearned fee) and 1.15 (safekeeping property
of clients or third persons) – With regard to Count I, respondent’s failure to return
unearned fees, conversion of client funds, commingling of trust account funds, and
misuse of his trust account are in violation of these Rules. In Counts II and III,
respondent was not charged with violating Rule 1.5, but his failure to return
unearned fees to the clients in those matters amounts to a violation of Rule 1.5.
Rule 1.16 (obligations upon termination of the representation) – By failing to
return paperwork to his client in Count III and by failing to return unearned fees to
his clients in Counts II and III, respondent violated Rule 1.16.
Rule 3.2 (failure to make reasonable ef forts to expedite litigation) –
Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite the lawsuits of his clients
in Counts II and III. In Count II, the client was forced to hire new counsel to
complete his legal matters. In Count III, the client indicated that his matter was
never resolved. These actions violated Rule 3.2.
Rule 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation) – In Count
II, respondent failed to reply to the ODC’s inquiries concerning the client’s
disciplinary complaint. In Count III, respondent fa iled to provide the ODC with a

9

written response to the client’s disciplinary complaint, despite his assurances at his
sworn statement that he would do so. Therefore, respondent failed to cooperate with
ODC in its investigations of these complaints, in violation of Rule 8.1(c).
Rule 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct) – By violating
the above cited rules, respondent also violated Rule 8.4(a).
The board determined that respondent knowingly and intentionally violated
duties owed to his clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. As
to Count I, he caused actual harm to the clients and third parties identified in the
audit report. As to Count II, he caused actual harm to his client by failing to perform
the work he was hired to do, requiring the client to hire subsequent counsel, and by
failing to refund the legal fees and expenses paid by the client. As to Count III, he
caused actual harm to the client by failing to provide the client with proof that he
performed the work for which he was hired and by failing to refund legal fees paid
by the client. Based on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the
board determined that the applicable baseline sanction is disbarment.
The board found the following aggr avating factors present: a dishonest or
selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of
the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders
of the disciplinary agency, substantial exp erience in the practice of law (admitted
2006), and indifference to making restitution. The board found the following
mitigating factors present: absence of a prior disciplinary record and personal or
emotional problems ( participation in the Judges and La wyers Assistance Program
for depression and anxiety in 2016).
After considering the jurisprudence of this court, the board recommended
respondent be disbarred. The board also recommended he be ordered to make
restitution to the clients and/or third partie s listed in the audit report, including

10

$2,7806 to the Mire Branch Water Corporation and $1,970 to Frank J. Vautrot, Jr.
The board further recommended he be assessed with the costs and expenses of this
proceeding.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the disciplinary 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.
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 admitte d factual allegations. In re: Donnan , 01 -3058 (La.
1/10/03), 838 So. 2d 715.

6 The board noted that this amount included $1,630 in legal fees in connection with the former
employee matter and $1,150 in legal fees and expenses in connection with the water meter
company matter , but it is unclear how the board arrived at these calculations. As previously
mentioned, Mr. Guillory paid respondent a total of $2,980 for both matters, and the record contains
two checks in the amounts of $1,730 and $1,250, both of which are made payable to respondent.

11

The record in this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent
neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, converted client funds,
overdrew his trust account, failed to maintain records of his trust account, failed to
properly withdraw from representations, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its
investigation. Based on these facts, respondent has violated 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 S o. 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).
The record further supports a finding that respondent violated duties owed to
his clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. His misconduct
was at least knowing, and perhaps intentional, and caused actual harm to his clients.
The baseline sanction for this type of misconduct is disbarment. The following
aggravating factors are supported by the record: a pattern of misconduct, multiple
offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing
to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, substantial experience
in the practice of law, and indifference to making restitution
. The record supports
the mitigating factors found by the disciplinary board.
Case law suggests that the board’s recommended sanction is appropriate. In
In re: Gilbert, 16-0044 (La. 3/4/16), 185 So. 3d 734, this court disbarred an attorney
for neglecting legal matters, failing to communicate with clients, failing to account

12

for or refund unearned fees, failing to properly withdraw from a representation,
engaging in dishonest conduct, and failing to cooperate with the ODC in its
investigation. In In re: Weber , 15-0982 (La. 8/28/15), 177 So. 3d 106, this court
disbarred an attorney who neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a
client, converted client funds, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its
investigation. In In re: Hatfield , 08-2632 (La. 2/20/09), 2 So. 3d 425, this court
disbarred an attorney who neglec ted legal matters, failed to communicate with his
clients, failed to refund unearned fees, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its
investigations. In each of these cases, there were several aggravating factors present
and the only mitigating factor present was the absence of a prior disciplinary record.
Based on the above jurisprudence, and considering the record, we will adopt
the board’s recommendation and disbar respondent. We will further order that
respondent make restitution to the clients and/o r third parties subject of the audit
report, as appropriate; to Mire Branch Water Corporation in the amount of $2,980;
and to Frank J. Vautrot, Jr. in the amount of $1,970.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee
and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Nicholas
Anthony Bellard, Louisiana Bar Roll number 30220, be and he hereby is disbarred.
His name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys and his license to
practice law in the State of Louisiana shall be revoked. It is further ordered that
respondent shall make restitution to the clients and/or third parties subject of the
audit report, as appropriate ; to Mire Branch Water Corporation in the amount of
$2,980; and to Frank J. Vautrot, Jr. in the amount of $1,970. All costs and expenses
in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule

13

XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of
this court’s judgment until paid.