In Re: George A Flournoy

Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 22, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: GEORGE A FLOURNOY
No. 2021-B-00614
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Rule to Revoke Probation;
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 22, 2021
Probation revoked. See per curiam.
JLW
JDH
SJC
WJC
JBM
PDG
06/22/2021 "See News Release 026 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

06/22/21
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2
021-B-0614
I
N RE: GEORGE A. FLOURNOY
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
T he instant disciplinary proceeding arises from a motion and rule to revoke
probation filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent,
George A. Flournoy, for his additional violations of the Rules of Professional
Conduct during the active portion of his suspension imposed in In re: Flournoy, 19-
1479 (La. 4/3/20), ___ So. 3d ___ (“Flournoy I”).
UNDE
RLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The record in Flournoy I demonstrated that respondent (1) instructed his
secretary, Mary White a/k/a Mary Attenhofer, to forge his signature and the
signature of a client on a satisfaction of judgment and then notarize the document
and (2) continued to file pleadings into the record of his former clients’ cases despite
the trial court’s order for him to cease doing so. For this knowing misconduct, the
court suspended respondent from the practice of law for one year, with all but thirty
days deferred, followed by one year of unsupervised probation. The court concluded
that “[a]ny failure of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, or any
misconduct during the probationary period, may be grounds for making the deferred
suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate.”
Respondent’s reinstatement to the practice of law was effective August 5,
2020. His probation commenced on August 20, 2020, when he executed a formal

2

probation agreement with the ODC. Respondent agreed to several conditions of
probation, including that he shall:
Acknowledge that any violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct and/or this Probation Agreement
may result in revocation of his probation and making the
deferred portion of his suspension executory and/or such
other disciplinary action as may be appropriate under the
Rules of Professional Conduct and Louisiana Supreme
Court Rule XIX.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Motion and Rule to Revoke Probation
On March 23, 2021, the ODC filed the instant motion and rule to revoke
respondent’s probation, alleging that he failed to comply with the conditions of his
probation by engaging in additional violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct
during the active portion of his suspension imposed in Flournoy I.
Specifically, the ODC contended that, in anticipation of being reinstated to
the practice of law following the active portion of his suspension, respondent signed
a Rule XIX, §23, affidavit certifying to t his court that he had complied with the
conditions imposed in Flournoy I. Respondent’s secretary, Mary White, purportedly
notarized the affidavit on July 15, 2020 in Rapides Parish. However, the ODC later
learned that respondent was in Montana on July 15, 2020 and that he directed Ms.
White to notarize the affidavit on July 15, 2020 even though he actually signed it on
or before July 11, 2020. The fraudulent affidavit was then submitted to this court in
connection with respondent’s reinstatement efforts. Respondent provided the ODC
with a sworn statement on November 18, 2020, during which he indicated he saw
nothing wrong with his actions. The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated the
following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 3.3(a)(3) (candor
toward the tribunal), 5.3(b), (c)(1), & (c)(2) (failure to properly supervise a non -

3

lawyer assistant), 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), and 8.4(c)
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).
Additionally, the ODC contended that, during the active portion of his
suspension, respondent informed opposing counsel in a worker’s compensation case
that he needed to continue a July 7, 2020 hearing due to medical reasons when, in
fact, he needed the continuance because he was suspended from the practice of law.
Opposing counsel placed this false information in a motion to continue and filed the
motion with the worker’s compensation court. Respondent allowed this false
information to be presented to a tribunal and made no effort to correct the false
statement. The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 3.3(a)(1) (candor toward the tribunal),
4.1 (a) (knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person),
8.4(a), and 8.4(c).
Accordingly, the ODC prayed for revocation of respondent’s probation. The
ODC further prayed for the imposition of the previously-deferred portion of the one-
year suspension and/or additional discipline.

Hearing on Revocation of Probation
This matter proceeded to a hearing before an adjudicative panel of the
disciplinary board on April 22, 2021. The ODC was represented by Chief
Disciplinary Counsel Charles Plattsmier. Resp ondent appeared pro se. Both the
ODC and respondent introduced documentary evidence and called witnesses to
testify before the board panel. Respondent also testified on his own behalf and on
cross-examination by the ODC.
The ODC first called Steven Oxenhandler, opposing counsel in the worker’s
compensation case. Mr. Oxenhandler testified that, on July 2, 2020, he and his co-
counsel, attorney Mary Allison Johnson, had a telephone conference with

4

respondent, who requested a continuance of a hearing in the case because he was
having medical issues. Mr. Oxenhandler testified that his client had no interest in
continuing the matter, but he agreed to the continuance only because respondent
represented he was having medical issues. Ms. Johnson also agreed to t he
continuance and called respondent again later to request a continuance of the trial
date. Mr. Oxenhandler’s understanding was that Ms. Johnson spoke with
respondent’s secretary and that his secretary relayed respondent’s agreement to the
trial date continuance. Mr. Oxenhandler further testified that Ms. Johnson drafted
the motion to continue and he signed the motion. He did not learn respondent was
suspended from the practice of law until Ms. Johnson received a letter from
respondent informing her of his suspension approximately one week after the
telephone conference.
The ODC next called Ms. Johnson to testify. Ms. Johnson confirmed that
respondent requested the continuance due to medical reasons and that respondent
did not mention his suspension at any time during the telephone conference. She
also indicated her client would not have agreed to a continuance for reasons other
than medical. She and Mr. Oxenhandler agreed to the continuance, and respondent
asked them to draft the motion. Ms. Johnson further testified that she later called
respondent’s office to request a continuance of the trial date and spoke to
respondent’s secretary, Mary. Respondent was not available, so Mary relayed the
request to him and called Ms. Johnson back to inform her of respondent’s agreement
to the trial continuance. Ms. Johnson then drafted the motion to continue, stating
respondent’s medical issues as the reason, which motion was faxed and mailed to
respondent on July 2, 2020. She first learned of respondent’s suspension when she
received a letter from him dated July 6, 2020, in which he stated that he was
suspended.

5

Regarding the worker’s compensation case, respondent testified that he
informed Mr. Oxenhandler and Ms. Johnson of his suspension during the telephone
conference. He denied telling them he needed the continuance because he was
having medical issues. They agreed to the continuance because of his suspension.
He confirmed asking them to file the motion to continue but requested they not
reference his susp ension in the motion. He stated that he did not see the motion
when it was received in his office because Ms. White filed it since he had already
told her the matter was being continued.
Regarding the affidavit, respondent testified that he was out of tow n on July
15, 2020 and that he executed the affidavit in Ms. White’s presence before leaving
town. He also admitted that he instructed Ms. White to date, notarize, and file the
affidavit with the court on July 15, 2020.
Respondent then called Ms. White as a witness. Regarding the worker’s
compensation case, Ms. White testified that respondent informed her opposing
counsel had agreed to continue the hearing and the trial date. She also testified that,
more than likely, she filed the motion and did not show it to respondent when she
received it because he was already aware of the continuance.
Regarding the affidavit, Ms. White confirmed that respondent executed the
affidavit in her presence prior to July 15, 2020 but instructed her to show July 15,
2020 as the date she notarized the affidavit and to file the affidavit with the court on
that date. She testified that she followed respondent’s instructions.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation
On May 4, 2021, the disciplinary board filed its report with this court,
recommending that the ODC’s motion and rule to revoke probation be granted in
light of the evidence in the record.

6

With respect to the affidavit, the board found that respondent instructed Ms.
White to date and notarize the affidavit on a date after it was actually executed and
then file the affidavit with this court. Based on these facts, the board determined
respondent violated Rules 3.3(a)(3), 5.3(b), (c)(1), & (c)(2), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c) of the
Rules of Professional Conduct.
With respect to the worker’s compensation case, the board determined the
testimony of Mr. Oxenhandler and Ms. Johnson was credible. Based on this
testimony, the board found that respondent contacted opposing counsel and
requested they agree to a continuance of the July 7, 2020 hearing due to his medical
issues. He also asked opposing counsel to file the motion for continuance with the
worker’s compensation court. Based on these facts, the board determined
respondent violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 4.1(a), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4( d) (engaging in
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
In light of the above findings, the board concluded that respondent has
committed additional violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which
constitutes grounds for the revocatio n of his probation ordered by the court in
Flournoy I. Accordingly, the board recommended that the motion
to revoke probation be granted and that the previously -deferred portion of the one -
year suspension imposed in Flournoy I be made executory. Finally, the board
recommended that respondent be assessed with all costs and expenses of this
proceeding.
Respondent filed a response to the board’s recommendation, asking the court
not to revoke his probation.

DISCUSSION
A review of the record reveals that resp ondent engaged in additional
violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct during the active portion of his

7

suspension imposed in Flournoy I. As the disciplinary board has found, respondent
instructed his secretary to date and notarize an affidavit on a date after it was actually
executed. Additionally, the board found that respondent contacted opposing counsel
in a worker’s compensation case and requested they agree to a continuance of a
hearing due to his medical issues when, in fact, he needed the continuance because
he was suspended from the practice of law. Based on this additional misconduct
during his period of active suspension, the board recommended respondent’s
probation be revoked and the previously-deferred portion of his one-year suspension
be made executory.
In light of respondent’s additional violations of the Rules of Professional
Conduct, we will accept the board’s recommendation and grant the motion to revoke
respondent’s probation, making the previously -deferred portion of the one -year
suspension imposed in Flournoy I immediately executory.

DECREE
For the reasons assigned, respondent’ s probation is revoked and the
previously-deferred portion of the one-year suspension imposed in In re: Flournoy,
19-1479 (La. 4/3/20), ___ So. 3d ___, is hereby made immediately executory. All
costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent, George A.
Flournoy, Louisiana Bar Roll number 5620, 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.