In Re: Margot A. Tillman-fleet

Supreme Court of Louisiana
March 02, 2021
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: MARGOT A. TILLMAN-FLEET
No.2020-B-01040
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
March 02, 2021
Disbarment imposed. See per curiam.
PDG
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
03/02/2021 "See News Release 008 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

03/02/21
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2
020-B-1040
I
N RE: MARGOT A. TILLMAN-FLEET
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Margot A. Tillman -Fleet, an
attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana.
UNDE
RLYING FACTS
The following facts are not in dispute, having been stipulated to by the parties.
In late February 2012, respondent self-reported to the ODC that she had been
arrested in late July 2011 for theft, public payroll fraud, and filing false public
records. Respondent’s arrest stemmed from an investigation conducted by the
Louisiana Highway Safety Commission (“LHSC”) based on information received
by that agency following a State audit.
The investigation revealed that, between October 2008 and September 2009,
respondent, as an LHSC contractor, submitted invoices to the LHSC to be paid for
certain activities that were funded by a federal grant program. Respondent’s primary
role was to disseminate and otherwise educate the public on safe driving. The
information she was tasked with sharing was anything from the effects of drinking
and driving to the benefits of wearing a seat belt. Respondent’s misconduct resulted
from her billing the LHSC for time and travel for events that did not occur. The

2

investigator’s report found that respondent received m ore than $50,000 through
fraudulent means.1
Respondent’s criminal matter was resolved through a pre -trial diversion
program in January 2013, and respondent was only required to make $2,500 in
restitution for her criminal conduct. 2 However, respondent admits she was paid
some compensation that she did not earn.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In February 2016, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging
that her conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Prof essional
Conduct: Rules 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), and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).
Respondent answered the formal charges and admitted to the alleged rule
violations. In her answer, she also requested a hearing in mitigation. Prior to the
hearing in mitigation, respondent and the ODC filed j oint stipulations wherein she
admitted to the factual allegations of the formal charges as set forth above.

Hearing Committee Report
Based upon the joint stipulations, the evidence, and the testimony presented
at the hearing, the hearing committee determ ined respondent violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct as charged. The committee also determined that, although

1 Specifically, the investigation revealed that respondent received a total of $53,732 as
reimbursements for expenses she never actually incurred.
2 The record indicates that respondent actually paid a total of $3,500 in restitution. She made a
$1,000 restitution payment on April 16, 2012 and a $2,500 restitution payment on May 15, 2012.

3

respondent was not convicted of a crime because she completed a pre-trial diversion
program instead, the evidence in the record proves a crime was committed.
The committee then determined respondent knowingly and intentionally
violated duties owed to the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. Her
conduct caused actual harm in that she collected approximately $53,000 in funds to
which she was not entitled and only repaid approximately $3,600. After considering
the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined the
baseline sanction is disbarment.
In aggravation, the committee reiterated the fact that re spondent violated the
Rules of Professional Conduct. In mitigation, the committee found respondent was
allowed to enter and did complete the pre -trial diversion program. The committee
also noted that respondent introduced into evidence several character letters in
mitigation.
In light of the above, the committee recommended respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for two years.
Although neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the
committee’s report, in their respective pre-argument briefs to the disciplinary board,
they each objected to the recommended sanction. While respondent argued that the
appropriate sanction is a public reprimand, the ODC argued that the appropriate
sanction is disbarment.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation
After reviewing this matter, the disciplinary board noted that respondent
stipulated to the factual allegations set forth in the formal charges. The board also
adopted the additional factual findings made by the hearing committee.
Additionally, the board found respondent repaid $3,500 in restitution and no further
restitution payments were required of her in connection with the pre -trial diversion

4

program she completed. Regarding rule violations, the board noted respondent
stipulated to violating the Ru les of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal
charges.
The board then determined respondent knowingly and intentionally violated
duties owed to the public and the legal profession. Her conduct caused actual harm
in that she was paid $53,000 in public funds to which she was not entitled, and she
only repaid $3,500. Her conduct also reflects adversely on the legal profession. The
board agreed with the committee that the baseline sanction is disbarment.
In aggravation, the board found a dishonest or selfish motive, substantial
experience in the practice of law (admitted 1988), and illegal conduct. In mitigation,
the board found the following: the absence of a prior disciplinary record, personal
or emotional problems, full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board or a
cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, character or reputation, physical
disability, and a delay in the disciplinary proceedings.
After further considering this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the board recommended respondent be disbarred.
After the deadline to oppose the board’s recommendation had passed,
respondent filed an objection with the court. On November 16, 2020, we rejected
respondent’s objection as untimely but permitted the parties to file briefs without
oral argument. Both parties filed a brief in response to the court’s order.

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 an d 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. While we are not bound in any way by the findings and

5

recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, we have held the
manifest error standard is applicable to the committee’s factual findings. See In re:
Caulfield, 96 -1401 (La. 11/25/96), 683 So. 2d 714; In re: Pardue , 93-2865 (La.
3/11/94), 633 So. 2d 150.
The underlying facts of this matter are not in dispute, having been stipulated
to by the parties. Essentially, respondent received approximately $53,000 in federal
grant funds through fraudulent means. Respondent also admitted to violating Rules
8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and the record
supports those rule violations.
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 1 173
(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 knowingly, if not intentionally, violated duties owed to the public
and the legal profession. Her misconduct caused significant actual harm, as she only
repaid $3,500 of the approximately $53,000 in public funds. We agree with the
hearing committee and the disciplinary board that the baseline sanction is
disbarment.
Aggravating factors include a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of
misconduct, substantial experience in the practice of law, and illegal conduct. The
factors in mitigation are as follows: the absence of a prior disciplinary record,

6

personal or emotional problems, full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board or
a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, and character or reputation.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, we find guidance from In re:
Favorite, 18-1078 (La. 11/5/18), 255 So. 3d 1026. In Favorite, an attorney engaged
in a pattern of issuing worthless checks over a three -year period and presented a
check drawn on a closed account in the name of her mother to pay for office
furniture. We determined the attorney acted knowingly, if not intentionally, and
caused actual harm. For this misconduct, we imposed disbarment. In light of
Favorite, we agree with the board that respondent should be disbarred.
Accordingly, we will adopt the board’s recommendation and impose
disbarment.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee
and disciplinary board, and considering the record and the briefs filed by the parties,
it is ordered that Margot A. Tillman-Fleet, Louisiana Bar Roll number 18697, be and
she hereby is disbarred. Her name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys and
her license to practice law in the State of Louisiana shall be revoked. 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.