In Re: Dwan S. Hilferty

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #049
FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The Opinions handed down on the 10th day of December, 2021 are as follows:
PER CURIAM:
2021-B-01007 IN RE: DWAN S. HILFERTY
SUSPENSION IMPOSED. SEE PER CURIAM.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO.
2021-B-1007
IN
RE: DWAN S. HILFERTY
ATT
ORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
PER CU
RIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Dwan S. Hilferty , an attorney
licensed to practice law in Louisiana.
UNDERL
YING FACTS
Count I
In 1991, Joseph Duplessis, Sr. and his three brothers hired respondent to
handle an employment discrimination lawsuit against their employer. According to
Mr. Duplessis, their legal matter appeared to be progressing until Hurricane Katrina
in 2005. Thereafter, respondent failed to return Mr. Duplessis’ telephone calls or
otherwise keep him informed of the status of the case. When respondent did speak
to Mr. Duplessis, she offered what he considered to be excuses as to why the case
had not progressed. In 2011, respondent sent discovery requests to the defendant
but received no response. She never confirmed that the defendant was served with
the discovery requests and never filed a motion to compel the defendant to respond.
In March 2015, Mr. Duplessis filed a disciplinary complaint against
respondent. In November 2015, respondent provided the ODC with a sworn
statement, during which she admitted she had never communicated directly with her
clients except Mr. Duplessis. She also acknowledged the litigation had been ongoing
for approximately twenty-four years, with no action being taken since 2011.
10/10/21

2

In May 2018, the ODC requested that respondent provide an upda te on the
status of the litigation. In response, respondent indicated she would soon be filing a
motion to set the matter for trial. The docket report indicates that the last pleading
filed was a motion to continue the trial filed on February 29, 2016.
In July or August 2018, the ODC met with respondent and her counsel to
discuss the status of the litigation. At that time, the ODC requested respondent
provide a copy of her client file and a timeline explaining why the case had been
neglected for so long. When respondent failed to provide the documents, the ODC
sent her a November 2, 2018 follow -up email. Again, respondent did not provide
the documents. The ODC then served her with a subpoena duces tecum to produce
her client file by December 3, 2018. When the ODC later filed these formal charges
against respondent, she still had not responded to the subpoena.

Count II
In 1994, Austin Okuarume hired respondent to handle an employment
contract dispute. In 2002, Mr. Okuarume filed a disciplinary complaint against
respondent, alleging she had failed to conclude his case. He also alleged she had
stopped communicating with him and failed to return his file. After investigating
the complaint, the ODC determined respondent violated Rules 1.3 (failure to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client) and 1.4 (failure to
communicate with a client) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and offered
respondent diversion to conclude the matter. Respondent agreed and went through
the Louisiana State Bar Association’s (“LSBA”) diversion program. The complaint
was then closed in 2004.
Thereafter, respondent continued to represent Mr. Okuarume. However, in
September 2012, he filed another disciplinary complaint against her. In respo nse,
respondent indicated that she filed lawsuits on Mr. Okuarume’s behalf in both

3

federal and state court in July 1995. The federal court lawsuit was dismissed later
that year for lack of jurisdiction. In the state court proceeding, respondent sent
discovery requests to the defendant in 1997 and attended a pre -trial conference in
1998. The defendant only partially responded to the discovery requests. As such,
respondent sent additional discovery requests in 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, and 2013.
The defendant fai led to respond to any of these requests. When the ODC asked
respondent why she had not filed a motion to compel discovery in the roughly
nineteen-year history of the litigation, she apologized for not moving the case along
and acknowledged she could have filed a motion to compel. Respondent admitted
she failed to expedite the litigation and failed to communicate with Mr. Okuarume
or opposing counsel. Nevertheless, she never sought to withdraw from the
representation.
Several months later, on July 18, 20 16, respondent filed a motion to compel
discovery. The docket report indicated that the last filing prior to this filing was a
motion to set a trial on the merits filed by respondent on May 29, 1998. On May 7,
2018, respondent notified the ODC that the defendant had filed a motion for
summary judgment and had prevailed. She indicated she had appealed this ruling
but had been unsuccessful. Her subsequent writ of certiorari to this court was denied.
In July or August 2018, the ODC met with respondent and her counsel and
requested that respondent provide a copy of her client file. When respondent failed
to provide the file, the ODC sent her a November 2, 2018 follow -up email. Again,
respondent did not provide the file. The ODC then served her with a subpoena duces
tecum to produce the file. When the ODC later filed these formal charges against
respondent, she still had not responded to the subpoena.

4

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In May 2019, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging she
violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3,
1.4, 3.2 (failure to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation), and 8.4(d)
(engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Respondent
initially failed to answer the formal charges, and the factual allegations therein were
deemed admitted. Respondent subsequently filed a motion to set aside the deemed
admitted order, claiming she did not receive service of the formal charges. The
motion was denied by the hearing committee chair in August 2019.
In December 2019 , the matter proceeded to a hearing in mitigation.
Respondent was the only witness to testify at the hearing. During her testimony,
respondent stated that she does not contest the ODC’s allega tions of misconduct
against her. In mitigation, she claimed she lacked a dishonest or selfish motive and
made a good faith effort to rectify the consequences of her misconduct. She pointed
to the numerous character letters in the record as evidence of her good character and
reputation. She also expressed remorse for her misconduct. However, respondent
acknowledged that she still ha d not provided the ODC with a copy of either the
Duplessis file or the Okuarume file in response to the subpoenas duces tecum served
on her in 2018.

Hearing Committee Report
After noting that the factual allegations set forth in the formal charges have
been deemed admitted, the hearing committee determined respondent violated the
Rules of Professional Conduct as charged. Regarding the Rule 8.4(d) violation, the
committee specifically referenced respondent’s failure to respond to the ODC’s
subpoenas duces tecum, which it considered to be a failure to cooperate with the
ODC in its investigations.

5

After considering the testimony and evidence presented at the mitigation
hearing, the committee determined respondent’s conduct caused no actual harm to
her clients. In particular, the committee found both the Duplessis case and the
Okuarume case lacked sufficient facts and/or evidence to support a viable claim.
However, the committee further found that the lack of evidence partly stemmed from
respondent’s failure to compel discovery and/or subpoena documents in the cases.
The committee also noted respondent still has not com plied with the ODC’s
subpoenas duces tecum for her client files, and she provided no reasonable
explanation for her failure to respond to those subpoenas.
In mitigation, the committee determined the following factors are present: the
absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, character or reputation, and remorse. In
aggravation, the committee found a prior disciplinary record (diversion in the
Okuarume matter) and a pattern of misconduct. In further aggravation, the
committee found respondent demonstrated a “knowing indifference” to her
obligations under Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 3.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Additionally, the committee found respondent’s explanation for her failure to answer
the formal charges to be “unconvincing” and determined that her failure to maintain
a proper address with the LSBA for service purposes showed her further indifference
to her obligations under the rules.
The committee determined respondent violated duties owed to her clients, the
legal system, and the legal profession. She acted negligently in the Duplessis matter.
She acted knowingly in the Okuarume matter in light of her prior diversion in the
matter.
After further considering this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct and determining that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating
factors, the committee recommended respondent be suspended from the practice of
law for one year and one day. The committee further recommended that all but

6

ninety days of this suspension be deferred, follow ed by two years of supervised
probation.
The ODC filed an objection to the committee’s findings and recommendation.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation
After review, the disciplinary board determined that the hearing committee’s
factual findings are not manifestly erroneous, with one exception relating to her
failure to maintain a proper address with the LSBA. The board noted that no
evidence was presented to suggest, nor did the ODC allege, that respondent failed to
properly maintain her address with the L SBA. As such, the board determined the
committee erred in its finding that respondent’s failure to answer the formal charges
was a result of her failure to maintain a proper address with the LSBA. In all other
respects, the board adopted the committee’s factual findings.
Based on those facts, the board determined respondent violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges. Specifically, the board
determined both the Duplessis case and the Okuarume case were fairly
straightforward cases that, nevertheless, languished for decades because of
respondent’s neglect, triggering a violation of Rules 1.3 and 3.2. The board also
determined respondent violated Rule 1.4 by failing to adequately communicate with
her clients. Finally, the board determined respondent violated Rule 8.4(d) by
causing excessive delays in her clients’ litigation and by failing to cooperate with
the ODC.
The board then determined respondent violated duties owed to her clients and
the legal system. Her conduct was negligent with respect to the Duplessis matter
but knowing with respect to the Okuarume matter, and it caused actual harm to her
clients due to the excessive delays in the cases. Based on the ABA’s Standards for

7

Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , the board deter mined the baseline sanction is
suspension.
In aggravation, the board found the following: 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, and substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted
1982). In mitigation, the board found the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive,
personal or emotional problems, character or reputation, and remorse.
After further considering this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the board recommended respondent be suspended from the practice of
law for one year and one day.
Respondent filed an objection to the board’s recommendation. Accordingly,
the case was docketed for oral argument pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, §
11(G)(1)(b).

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. While we are not bound in any way by the findings and
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 record of this matter supports a finding that respondent neglected two
legal matters and failed to communicate with her clients over the course of

8

approximately two decades. Respondent also failed to fully cooperate with the ODC
in its investigation of the two disciplinary complaints. Accordingly, she has violated
the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.
Disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain high standards of conduct,
protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession, and deter future
misconduct. In re: Hingel, 20-0992 (La. 11/10/20), 303 So. 3d 1029. 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. In re:
Smothers, 20 -0244 (La. 6/22/20), 297 So. 3d 743.
The purpose of lawyer
disciplinary proceedings is not so much to punish the attorney as it is to maintain
appropriate standards of professional conduct in order to protect the public and the
administration of justice. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Powell, 439 So. 2d 415 (La.
1983).
Considering the extensive length of time respondent neglected her clients’
legal matters and failed to communicate with them, we find she acted knowingly in
violating duties owed to those clients as well as the legal system and the legal
profession. The extended delays resulting from her conduct and her failure to fully
cooperate with the ODC’s investigations caused actual harm. The baseline sanction
for this misconduct is suspension. The record supports the disciplinary board’s
findings regarding aggravating and mitigating factors.
We do not minimize the significance of the delay in respondent’s resolution
of the two legal matters at issue, which resulted in harm to her clients. Nevertheless,
we recognize that respondent did not cause her clients to lose a right or remedy in
their legal matters. In light of this fact, as well as the mitigating factors present, we
find the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct is a one year and one day
suspension, with six months deferred , followed by one year of probation. This

9

sanction will give respondent an opportunity to correct the problems which caused
the misconduct, while at the same time protecting the public from future misconduct.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee
and disciplinary board, and considering the record, briefs, and oral argument, it is
ordered that Dwan S. Hilferty, Louisiana Bar Roll number 1416, be suspended from
the practice of law for one year and one day. It is further ordered that six months of
the suspension shall be deferred. Following the activ e portion of the suspension,
respondent shall be placed on probation for one year. The probationary period shall
commence from the date respondent and the ODC execute a formal probation plan.
Any misconduct during the probationary period may be grounds f or making the
deferred portion of the suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as
appropriate. 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.