In Re: Christine Y. Voelkel

Supreme Court of Louisiana
October 12, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: CHRISTINE Y. VOELKEL
No. 2021-B-00575
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN R
E: Office of Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and
Recommendations (Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
October 12, 2021
Disbarment imposed. See per curiam.
Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
WJC
JLW
JDH
JTG
JBM
PDG
10/12/2021 "See News Release 041 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
N
o. 2021-B-0575
I
N RE: CHRISTINE Y. VOELKEL
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Christine Y. Voelkel, an attorney
licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently suspended from practice.
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 2004. On May 20, 2019, this court suspended respondent from
the practice of law for one year and one day after she had overdrawn her client trust
account on several occasions, practiced law while ineligible to do so, and failed to
cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. In re: Voelkel, 19-0480 (La. 5/20/19),
273 So. 3d 1198 (“Voelkel I”). Respondent has not applied for reinstatement from
her suspension in Voelkel I and thus remains suspended from the practice of law.
Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the misconduct at
issue in the present proceeding.
FO
RMAL CHARGES
For each of the following counts, the ODC attempted to send notices of the
overdrafts and associated disciplinary complaints to respondent at her primary bar
registration address and/or her preferred mailing address. In e ach case, the notices
10/12/21

2

were returned marked as follows: “Return to Sender. Not Deliverable as Addressed.
Unable to Forward.” Respondent has not responded to any of the complaints or to
the ODC’s requests for information regarding the overdrafts.

Count I
In June 2018, Marie Tridico hired respondent to represent her in a criminal
matter as well as a child custody matter, paying respondent a $2,500 retainer fee.
Respondent enrolled as counsel in the criminal matter but failed to enroll as counsel
in the custody matter. Respondent filed no pleadings in either matter, failed to take
any action on behalf of Ms. Tridico in the custody matter, and did not respond to
Ms. Tridico’s repeated requests for updates regarding her matters. Due to her
inaction, Ms. Tridico had to be represented by a public defender in the criminal
matter and had to retain new counsel to represent her in the custody matter, at an
additional cost of $4,000. Ms. Tridico requested a refund of the fee she paid, but
respondent failed to refund any portion of the fee.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1 (failure to provide competent
representation to a client), 1.3 (failure to act w ith 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), 1.15(a) (safekeeping property of clients
or third persons), 1.15(d) (failure to timely remit funds to a client or third party),
8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), 8.4(a) (violation of
the Rules of Professional Conduct), and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).

3

Count II
In August 2018, Candace Baker hired respondent to represent her in a custody
matter, paying respondent a $1,500 cash retainer fee. In the months that followed,
respondent failed to communicate with Ms. Baker about the status of the matter. In
addition, r espondent failed to enroll as Ms. Baker’s counsel, failed to file any
pleadings on behalf of Ms. Baker, and failed to attend a hearing on October 4, 2018.
Respondent also failed to return the unearned fee despite Ms. Baker’s requests for a
refund. As a r esult of respondent’s inaction and refusal to refund the retainer fee,
Ms. Baker was forced to represent herself in the matter.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(5), 1.15(a), 1.15(d),
8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).

Count III
Between December 17, 2018 and January 30, 2019, the ODC received six
separate notices from Capital One Bank that the balance of respondent’s client trust
account was insufficient to honor checks which had been presented for payment.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1, 1.15(a), 1.15(d), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).

Count IV
In January 2019, a disciplinary complaint was filed against respondent by
Jacques Bezou, Jr. of the Bezou Law Firm. Mr. Bezou, who is the former employer
of respondent, received notice from the 22
nd JDC that respondent had written an NSF
check to the St. Tammany Parish Clerk of Court. The check, dated December 28,
2018, listed respondent’s office address as the address of the Bezou Law Firm,

4

although she had left the firm approximately eight years prior to the issuance of the
check.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1, 1.15(a), 1.15(d), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and
8.4(c).

Count V
In August 2018, Ann Williams hired respondent to handle a medical
malpractice matter. They executed a contingency fee agreement and Ms. Williams
paid respondent a $200 cost deposit. In the months that followed, respondent failed
to communicate with Ms. Williams about the status of the matter and did not respond
to her phone calls, emails, and text messages. Ms. Williams requested a full refund
of the deposit, to no avail.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(5), 1.15(a), 1.15(d),
8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).

Count VI
In May 2018, Terrence Williams hired respondent to represent him in a child
support and visitation matter. His mother (Ann Williams of Count V) paid
respondent $1,500 for the representation. In the months that followed, respondent
failed to communicate with Mr. Williams about the status of the matter and did not
respond to his phone calls and emails. Respondent did not render the anticipated
legal services for Mr. Williams, and she failed to refund any portion of the fee paid.
Without these funds, Mr. Williams was unable to hire new counsel to represent him
in the matter.

5

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(5), 1.15(a), 1.15(d),
8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).

Count VII
In September 2017, George Kernan hired respondent to represent him in a
domestic matter . He paid respondent an $11,178 fee for the representation.
Thereafter, respondent failed to diligently prepare the necessary pleading to file for
Mr. Kernan’s divorce and failed to reasonably communicate with him about the
status of the matter. In April 2018, Mr. Kernan was served with a petition for child
and spousal support as well as a petition to nullify a matrimonial agreement. Court
dates were postponed and continued because of respondent’s failure to prepare and
file necessary pleadings on a timely basis. Due to respondent’s inaction, Mr. Kernan
had to retain new counsel to represent him in the matter, at additional cost.
Respondent failed to refund any portion of the fee that was paid.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(5), 1.15(a), 1.15(d),
8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).

Count VIII
In December 2017, Alicia Lewis hired respondent to represent her in a civil
matter involving First Financial Services. Ms. Lewis provided respondent with the
necessary paperwork and $600 cash as a flat fee payment for the representation.
After a few months, respondent failed to communicate with Ms. Lewis about the
status of her matter and failed to respond to her phone calls, texts, and emails. Ms.
Lewis requested a refund of the fee she paid, to no avail.

6

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(5), 1.15(a), 1.15(d),
8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).

Count IX
In March 2017, Robin Allen hired respondent to file suit against First Castle
Federal Credit Union, paying respondent a $1,500 flat fee. After the suit was filed,
respondent failed to communicate with Ms. Allen about the status of the matter,
failed to appear for the depositions of Ms. Allen and her mother, and failed to attend
a January 2019 trial in the litigation. Due to respondent’s inaction, a final judgment
dismissing Ms. Allen’s claims was entered in February 2019. A judgment in the
amount of $18,594.57 was entered in favor of First Castle on its reconventional
demand. First Castle was awarded $1,700.95 in fees and costs as a result of
respondent’s failure to proceed with the depositions. Respondent failed to refund
any portion of the fee that was paid.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(5), 1.15(a), 1.15(d),
8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In July 2020, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent as set forth
above. 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.

7

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the ODC’s deemed admitted submission, the hearing
committee adopted the deemed admitted factual allegations as its factual findings.
Based on these facts, the committee determined that respondent violated the Rules
of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.
The committee determined respondent violated duties owed to her clients, the
public, the legal system, and the legal profession. Her conduct was knowing. 1
Respondent caused actual harm to her clients in that she failed to return unearned
fees and caused some clients to spend additional funds and time to retain subsequent
representation. Her conduct caused actual harm to the legal system insofar as her
actions and/or omissions impeded judicial proceedings, delayed matters on court
dockets, and inconvenienced opposing counsel and court staff. She caused actual
harm to the public and the legal profession by virtue of the above and foregoing
reasons and their imputation to the reputation and public perception of the lega l
profession. Under the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the
baseline sanction is disbarment.
The committee found the following aggravating factors are supported by the
record: a prior disciplinary record, a dishonest or selfish motive, multiple offenses,
vulnerability of the victims, substantial experience in the practice of law, and
indifference to making restitution. The committee found no mitigating factors
present.
Based on these findings, the committee recommended respondent be
disbarred. The committee also recommended that respondent be ordered to pay
restitution to her clients and/or the Client Assistance Fund, as appropriate, and that
she be assessed with the costs and expenses of this proceeding.

1 In its report, the committee also indicated that the misconduct was “knowing and intentional.”

8

Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s
report. Therefore, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G), the disciplinary
board submitted the committee’s report to the court for review.

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. Supreme 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
failed to provide competent representation to clients, neglected legal matters, failed
to communicate with clients, failed to refund unearned fees, mismanaged her client
trust account, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. As such,
she 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

9

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 violated duties owed to her clients, the public , the legal s ystem,
and the legal profession. Her conduct was knowing, and perhaps intentional, and
caused significant harm to her clients. Considering the ABA’s Standards for
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the baseline sanction in this matter is disbarment. The
record supports the aggravating found by the hearing committee. No mitigating
factors are apparent from the record.
Based on the foregoing, we will adopt the hearing committee’s
recommendation and disbar respondent. We will also order respondent to pay
restitution to her clients and/or the Client Assistance Fund, as appropriate.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the hearing committee ,
and considering the record, it is ordered that Christine Y. Voelkel, Louisiana Bar
Roll number 29469, 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. It is further ordered that responde nt shall make restitution to her clients
and/or repay to the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Client Assistance Fund any
amounts paid to claimants on her behalf. All costs and expenses in the matter are
assessed against respondent in accordance with Suprem e Court Rule XIX, § 10.1,

10

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