In Re: Derrick K. Williams

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 24, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: DERRICK K. WILLIAMS
No. 2022-B-00350
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) - Applicant Other; Findings and
Recommendations (Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 24, 2022
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
SJC
JLW
JDH
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
05/24/2022 "See News Release 024 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
22-B-0350
I
N RE: DERRICK K. WILLIAMS
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
T his disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Derrick K. Williams, an attorney
licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently ineligible to practice.1
FO
RMAL CHARGES
19-DB- 049
Count I
In July 2016, the ODC received a notice from respondent’s bank that his trust
account had been overdrawn by $39.95. In November 2016, the ODC received a
notice from respondent’s bank that his trust account had been overdrawn by $39.95
for a second time. Respondent failed to respond to the ODC’s notice of the related
disciplinary complaint, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena to obtain his sworn
statement. Despite being served with the subpoena, respondent failed to appear for
the sworn statement on February 8, 2017.
The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated Rules 1.15 (safekeeping
property of clients or third persons) and 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in
its investigation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
1 On November 1, 2021, respondent was declared ineligible to practice law for failing to pay his
bar dues and the disciplinary assessment.
05/24/22

2

Count II
The ODC received notice from respondent’s bank that his trust account had
been overdrawn by $39.95 on April 9, 2018. Respondent failed to respond to the
ODC’s notice of the related disciplinary complaint, which was delivered to his bar
registration address on June 4, 2018.
The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated Rules 1.15 and 8.1(c) of the
Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count III
Between September 11, 2017 and May 4, 2018, respondent was ineligible to
practice law for failing to pay his bar dues and the disciplinary assessment. Despite
his ineligibility, on February 8, 2018, respondent sent a letter to an insurance
adjuster, notifying the adjuster that he was representing four clients with respect to
a personal injury claim. Respondent failed to respond to the ODC’s notice of the
related disciplinary complaint, which was delivered to his bar registration address
on March 1, 2018.
The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated Rules 5.5 (engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law) and 8.1(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count IV
On February 19, 2019, respondent’s trust account was overdrawn by $472.72.
On March 29, 2019, his trust account was overdrawn by $295. Respondent failed to
respond to the ODC’s notice of the related disciplinary complaint, which was
delivered to his primary bar registration address on April 15, 2019.
In April 2019, respondent’s trust account was overdrawn three times, once in
the amount of $212.82 and twice in the amount of $944.44. Respondent failed to

3

respond to the ODC’s notice of the related disciplinary complaint, which was
delivered to his primary bar registration address on May 21, 2019.
The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated Rules 1.15 and 8.1(c) of the
Rules of Professional Conduct.

20-DB-002
Count I
The ODC received notice from respondent’s bank that his trust account had
been overdrawn multiple times in June and July 2019 in the approximate total
amount of $1,501. Respondent failed to respond to the ODC’s notice of the related
disciplinary complaint, which was delivered to his primary bar registration address.
The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated Rules 1.15 and 8.1(c) of the
Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count II
The ODC received notice from respondent’s bank that his trust account had
been overdrawn multiple times in August 2019 in the approximate total amount of
$1,153. Respondent failed to respond to the ODC’s notice of the related disciplinary
complaint, which was delivered to his primary bar registration address.
The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated Rules 1.15 and 8.1(c) of the
Rules of Professional Conduct.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
The ODC filed formal charges against respondent under disciplinary board
docket number 19-DB-049 in August 2019. The ODC filed formal charges against
respondent under disciplinary board docket number 20-DB -002 in January 2020.
Respondent failed to answer either set of formal charges. Accordingly, the factual

4

allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and
convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3).
The matters were consolidated before being considered by a single hearing
committee. No formal hearings were held, but the parties were given an opportunity
to file with the committee written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue
of sanctions. Respondent filed nothing for the committee’s consideration.

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the ODC’s submission on sanction, the hearing committee
found that the factual allegations in the formal charges are deemed admitted and
supported by the evidence in the record. Based on the deemed admitte d facts, the
committee made the following factual findings:
Respondent overdrew his trust account multiple times in various amounts,
which resulted in presumptive conversion of client funds. Respondent also failed to
respond to multiple disciplinary complaints and, in one instance, failed to appear for
a sworn statement after being served with a subpoena to do so. His failure to respond
has frustrated and obstructed the ODC’s ability to investigate the presumptive
conversion matters. Additionally, in Fe bruary 2018, respondent engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law when he sent a letter of representation to an insurance
adjuster on behalf of four personal injury clients.
Based on these facts, the committee determined respondent violated Rules
1.15, 5.5, and 8.1(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. More specifically, the
committee determined respondent overdrew his trust account on several occasions
and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law during a period of ineligibility.
Additionally, he failed to cooperate with the ODC’s investigations, including failing
to appear to testify and failing to produce records after receiving a subpoena to do
so.

5

The committee then determined respondent negligently, if not knowingly,
violated duties owed to his clients and the legal profession. Noting that the extent
of actual harm to respondent’s clients cannot be quantified because of his failure to
cooperate in the ODC’s investigations, the committee concluded that his conduct
caused potential harm, if not actual harm, to his clients and the legal profession.
Citing the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee
determined the baseline sanction is suspension.
In aggravation, the committee found multiple offenses and bad faith
obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the
rules or orders of the disciplinary agency. The sole mitigating factor present,
according to the committee, is the absence of a prior disciplinary record.
After also considering this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the committee recommended respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for one year and one day. The committee further recommended
respondent be ordered to make restitution to any clien ts or third parties that were
harmed.
Respondent filed an objection to the committee’s report, denying that his
conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation
After review, the disciplinary board acknowledged that the factual allegations
set forth in the formal charges have been deemed admitted. The board then
determined that the hearing committee’s additional factual findings are not
manifestly erroneous and adopted same.
Based upon these facts, as well as the evidence in the record, the board
determined that the committee’s legal conclusions regarding rule violations are
correct. Specifically, the board determined respondent allowed his trust account to

6

become overdrawn on numerous occasions, engaged in the unauthorized practice of
law during a period of ineligibility, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in several
investigations, including failing to appear for a sworn statement and failing to
produce his trust account records pursuant to a properly -served subpoe na, all in
violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.
The board then determined respondent knowingly violated duties owed to his
clients and the legal profession. His conduct had the potential to cause harm to his
clients, with the board noting that a determination of whether any actual harm
occurred is not possible because of his failure to cooperate with the ODC’s
investigations. Respondent’s failure to cooperate with the ODC also caused harm
to the legal profession. The board agreed with the committee that the baseline
sanction is suspension. The board also agreed with the aggravating and mitigating
factors found by the committee.
After also 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. The board further recommended respondent be
ordered to (1) provide the ODC with an audit of his trust account for the years 2016
through 2020 conducted by an accountant approved by the ODC and (2) make
restitution to any clients or third parties that were shown by the audit to have been
harmed.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the disciplinary board’s
recommendation.

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

7

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. Supr eme 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 cha rges 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 admitte d factual allegations. In re: Donnan , 01 -3058 (La.
1/10/03), 838 So. 2d 715.
The evidence in the record of these deemed admitted matters supports a
finding that respondent allowed his trust account to become overdrawn on numerous
occasions, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law during a period of
ineligibility, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in several investigations,
including failing to appear for a sworn statement and failing to produce his trust
account records pursuant to a properly -served subpoena. Based on these facts,
respondent has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.
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 S o. 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

8

mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So. 2d 520
(La. 1984).
The record also supports a finding that respondent knowingly violated duties
owed to his clients and the legal profession, causing potential and actual harm.
Aggravating factors include a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad fai th
obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with
rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, and substantial experience in the practice
of law (admitted 2006). We agree with the hearing committee and the disciplinary
board that the sole mitigating factor is the absence of a prior disciplinary record. We
also agree that the baseline sanction is suspension.
The case of In re: Voelkel, 19-0480 (La. 5/20/19), 273 So. 3d 1198, presented
the court with an almost identical se t of circumstances as is presented here. In
Voelkel, the court found that an attorney overdrew her trust account on several
occasions, practiced law while ineligible to do so, and failed to cooperate with the
ODC in its investigations. For this misconduc t, the court suspended the attorney
from the practice of law one year and one day. Based on this case law, the board’s
recommended sanction is appropriate.
Accordingly, we will adopt the board’s recommendation and suspend
respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. We will further order
respondent to provide the ODC with an audit of his trust account for the years 2016
through 2020 conducted by an accountant approved by the ODC and to make
restitution to any clients or third parties that were shown by the audit to have been
harmed.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee
and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Derrick K.

9

Williams, Louisiana Bar Roll number 30836, be and he hereby is suspended from
the practice of law for one year and one day . It is further ordered that respondent
shall provide the ODC with an audit of his trust account for the years 2016 through
2020 conducted by an accountant approved by the OD C and shall make restitution
to any clients or third parties that were shown by the audit to have been harmed. 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.