In Re: Rolando Roberto Urbina

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 10, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: ROLANDO ROBERTO URBINA
No. 2022-B-00394
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Office of Disciplinary Counsel ( ODC) - Applicant Other; Findings and
Recommendations (Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 10, 2022
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
JBM
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
PDG
05/10/2022 "See News Release 021 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 202
2-B-0394
I
N RE: ROLANDO ROBERTO URBINA
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Rolando Roberto Urbina, an
attorney license d to practice law in Louisiana.
FO
RMAL CHARGES
In January 2019, the ODC received notice from Capital One Bank that
respondent’s client trust account held insufficient funds to honor a $365.00 check
presented for payment. Thereafter, the ODC sent a letter to respondent seeking his
substantive response and trust account records. Respondent failed to respond to the
request, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena for his sworn statement.
1
Pursuant to the subpoena, respondent appeared at the ODC’s office on August
15, 2019 and provided a sworn statement, but the records which he brought with him
were incomplete. Respondent was advised of the materials needed to complete an
audit of his trust account, but he failed to tender the requested records, and a precise
forensic audit of the trust account was not possible. Since then, the ODC has no t
been successful in contacting and/or locating respondent, and his family members
have indicated that respondent may have relocated to Texas.
1 Apparently, the ODC did receive some documents from respondent because the record contains
two letters, dated April 11, 2019 and June 13, 2019, wherein the ODC informed respondent that
the documentation he provided had been reviewed but additional documentation was need to
complete an audit of the account. There is no indication that respondent provided any substantive
response to the ODC’s request for same.
05/10/22

2

The ODC’s forensic auditor, Angelina Marcellino, conducted an assessment
of the overdraft investigation and trust account. She found that respondent failed to
keep proper records, failed to conduct reconciliations of his trust account, and failed
to provide the records necessary to support the transactions and balances identified
in the trust account. However, her findings were not precise as respondent failed to
provide enough information to allow for a complete audit. Discrepancies that were
found in the trust account could not be explained with the records that were obtained.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In May 2021, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, as set forth
above, alleging that he violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional
Conduct: Rules 1.15(a)(b)(c) (safekeeping property of clients or third persons),
8.1(b) (a lawyer sha ll not knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for
information from a disciplinary authority), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC
in its investigation), and 8.4(a)
(violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct).
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 opportun ity 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 submissi on, 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.

3

The committee determined respondent violated duties owed to his clients and
the legal system. He acted knowingly and intentionally. His misconduct caused
actual and potential harm to his clients’ interests. The insufficient funds notice
suggests that respondent mishandled client property. Client funds were not properly
maintained and thereby converted to personal use. Respondent violated duties owed
to the legal system by refusing to register his current service address and by failing
to cooperate with the disciplinary process, making it difficult for the legal system to
properly supervise its own licensee and maintain public trust and faith in the legal
system. His actions are those that seed public distrust in the legal profession. Under
the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the baseline sanction is
suspension.
The committee found the following aggravating factors present: 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 2011). The committee found the absence of a prior disciplinary
record to be the sole mitigating factor present.
After further 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 he
be assessed with the costs and expenses of this proceeding.
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

4

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.
The record in this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent
mishandled his client trust account and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its
investigation. 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 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
mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So. 2d 520
(La. 1984).
Respondent knowingly violated duties owed to his clients, the legal system,
and the legal profession. His misconduct caused potential harm to his clients and
actual harm to the legal profession. The record supports the aggravating factors and
mitigating factors found by the hearing committee . We agree with the committee
that the applicable baseline sanction is suspension.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, we agree that a one year and
one day suspension is appropriate under the facts of this case. The ODC has been
unsuccessful in contacting and/or locating respondent since his sworn statement.
After further considering the likelihood that he has relocated out of state, it appears
as though respondent has no intention of pr acticing law again in Louisiana.
Therefore, in order to ensure that the public is protected from any future misconduct,

5

we agree that respondent should be required to apply for reinstatement in the event
he decides to return to the practice of law.
Accordingly, we will accept the hearing committee’s recommendation and
suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the hearing committee ,
and considering the record, it is ordered that Rolando Roberto Urbina, Louisiana Bar
Roll number 34129, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for one
year and one day. 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.