In Re: Nicholas Anthony Bellard

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 04, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: NICHOLAS ANTHONY BELLARD
No. 2021-B-00339
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 04, 2021
Discipline imposed. See per curiam.
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
8:47 AM
05/04/2021 “See News Release 018 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents.”

05/04/21
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2021
-B-0339
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, a
disbarred attorney.
PRI
OR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY
Before we address the current charges, we find it helpful to review
respondent’s prior disciplinary history. Respondent was admitted to the practice of
law in Louisiana in 2006. On November 4, 2020, we disbarred respondent for
neglecting legal matters, failing to communicate with clients, converting client
funds, overdrawing his trust account, failing to maintain records of his trust account,
failing to properly withdraw from representations, and failing to cooperate with the
ODC in its investigation. In re: Bellard , 20-0761 (La. 11/ 4/20), 303 So. 3d 633
(“Bellard I”).
Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the misconduct at
issue in the instant proceeding.
FO
RMAL CHARGES
Count I

2

The ODC received a disciplinary complaint against respondent. On
December 7, 2017, a copy of the complaint was delivered to respondent’s primary
registration address. On May 4, 2018, a second copy of the complaint was delivered
to his last known address in North Carolina. On June 7, 2018, a third copy was sent
to the North Carolina address. Respondent failed to respond to the complaint.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated Rule 8.1(c) (failure to
cooperate with the ODC in its investigation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count II
In December 2017, Holly Overfelt hired respondent to represent her in an
adoption matter, for which she paid respondent an advance deposit of $1,500.
Several weeks later, she met with respondent to fill out paperwork to begin the
adoption process. They later met at her place of employment, at which time
respondent provided her with a fingerprint card along with instructions for
completing the card. By text message, respondent asked her to mail the completed
card to a North Carolina address as he was out of town.
In February 2018, respondent contacted Ms. Overfelt to request an additional
payment. By text message, he asked her to deposit the payment into his account
titled “AEGC International, LLC.” In accordance with his instructions, Ms. Overfelt
deposited the requested funds [in the amounts of $60 and $100] into the specified
account. After receiving the payment, respondent failed to respond to Ms. Overfelt’s
requests for updates in the matter. In June 2018, Ms. Overfelt contacted the court
and learned that no documents had been filed on her behalf.
A copy of the associated disciplinary complaint was forwarded to respondent
via certified mail and delivered to his primary address on July 11, 2018. A second
copy of the complaint was sent to respondent at that address on August 7, 2018, but
respondent failed to respond to the complaint.

3

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated Rules 1.3 (failure to act
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to
communicate with a client), 1.5(f)(5) (failure to refund an unearned fee), 8.1(c), and
8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct.

Count III

In July 2017, Phillip Richard hired respondent to finalize the purchase of his
mother’s home. During their initial meeting, Mr. Richard signed all the necessary
paperwork for the purchase and respondent promised to file the documents within
the week. The reafter, Mr. Richard attempted to contact respondent on several
occasions, but respondent had stopped taking his calls. In July 2018, Mr. Richard
finally made contact with respondent online, and respondent indicated that he had
relocated but promised to f ile the documents within the week. Again, Mr. Richard
heard nothing further from respondent. Mr. Richard attempted to contact respondent
on August 19, 2018 and August 27, 2018, but he was not successful.
A copy of the associated disciplinary complaint was forwarded to respondent
via certified mail and delivered to his primary address on April 1, 2019. A second
copy was sent to that address on May 6, 2019. He failed to respond to the complaint.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(c),
and 8.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In June 2020, 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

4

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
admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence. Based on these facts, the
committee determined that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct
as charged.
In Count I, respondent violated duties owed to the legal profession. His failure
to respond to the complaint was at least knowing, given that he signed for the ODC’s
first notice of the complaint. His misconduct caused potential harm to the integrity
of the legal process.
In Count II, respondent knowingly violated duties owed to his client, the
public (the child affected by the incomplete adoption), and the legal profession. His
failure to return $1,660 in unearned fees was knowing, if not intentional, and caused
actual harm to the client. His failure to file the documents necessary for the adoption
also caused actual harm to his client.
1
In Count III, respondent knowingly violated duties owed to his client and the
legal profession. His conduct caused actual harm to his client in that the purchase
of the home was not completed, presumably making it necessary for the client to
hire another attorney to complete the work.

1 In the formal charges, the ODC alleged that respondent failed to deposit the advanced fee s paid
by Ms. Overton into a client trust account, citing Rule 1.5(f)(5) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct. Rule 1.5(f)(5) doe s not apply to this allegation, but more importantly, there is no
evidence in the record to prove that the funds were not deposited into a client trust account.

5

After considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , the
committee determined the base line sanction is suspension. The committee also
determined that multiple aggravating factors, but no mitigating factors, are present.
In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, 573 So. 2d 470 (La. 1991), the
court observed that when a second attorney disciplinary proceeding involves conduct
that occurred during the same time period as the first proceeding, the overall
discipline to be imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before
the court simultaneously. The committee noted that the misc onduct in Bellard I
occurred between 2013 and 2017, and that the charges in Bellard I were filed in
September 2018. By comparison, the misconduct in the instant case occurred
between 2017 and 2019, which overlaps or immediately follows the misconduct and
the investigation of charges in Bellard I, and appears to be part of an ongoing pattern
of misconduct. After applying the analysis set forth in Chatelain , the committee
concluded that if the misconduct at issue in these proceedings had been before the
court in Bellard I, the court still would have imposed disbarment.
Accordingly, the committee recommended that respondent be adjudged guilty
of additional rule violations to be considered if and when he seeks readmission to
the practice of law. The committe e also recommended that respondent be ordered
to pay $1,660 in restitution to Ms. Overfelt. The committee further recommended
that he be assessed with the costs and expenses of these proceedings.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s
report and recommendation. Therefore, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, §
11(G), the disciplinary board submitted the committee’s report to the court for
review.

6

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. S upreme 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 charges 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 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
neglected his clients’ legal matters, failed to communicate with his clients, failed to
refund unearned fees, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. As
such, he 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 So. 2d 1173
(La. 1987). The discipline to be imposed depends upon the facts of each case and

7

the seriousness of the offenses involved considered i n 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 prior disciplinary 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. There are no mitigating factors in this case.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, we agree with the hearing
committee that, based on Chatelain, the misconduct in the instant matter should be
considered along with the misconduct in Bellard I. We also agree that the combined
misconduct would warrant no more than disbarment as was imposed in Bellard I.
Accordingly, we will adopt the hearing committee’s recommendation and
adjudge respondent guilty of additional rule violations to be considered if and when
he seeks readmission to the practice of law. We also order respondent to pay $1,660
in restitution to Ms. Overfelt.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the hearing committee ,
and considering the record, it is ordered that Nicholas Anthony Bellard, Louisiana
Bar Roll number 30220, be and he hereby is adjudged guilty of additional violations
warranting discipline, which shall be considered in the event he seeks re admission
after becoming eligible to do so. It is further ordered that respondent shall make

8

restitution to Holly Overfelt in the amount of $1,660. 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.