In Re: William K. Hawkins

Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 28, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: WILLIAM K. HAWKINS
No. 2022-B-00675
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 28, 2022
Disbarment imposed. See per curiam.
JDH
JLW
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
06/28/2022 "See News Release 029 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2
022-B-0675
I
N RE: WILLIAM K. HAWKINS
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
Th
is disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, William K. Hawkins, an attorney
licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently ineligible to practice.1
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 1988 . In 2008, respondent and the ODC filed in this court a
petition for consent discipline based upon allegations that he mishandled client and
third-party funds. For this misconduct, the parties proposed tha t respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for one year, fully deferred, subject to one year
of unsupervised probation with conditions. After review, we accepted the petition
for consent discipline and imposed the proposed discipline. In re: Hawkins, 08-2543
(La. 11/14/08), 994 So. 2d 523.
Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the misconduct at
issue in the instant proceeding.
1 On May 31, 2019, respondent was declared ineligible to practice law for failure to comply with
the mandatory continuing legal education requirements. He is also ineligible for failure to pay his
bar dues and the disciplinary assessment and for failing to file his trust account disclosure
statement.
06/28/22

2

FORMAL CHARGES
21-DB-037
Count I
Amber Matecun hired respondent to represent her in a workers’ compensation
matter. According to Ms. Matecun, after May 2019, respondent failed to
communicate with her but did discuss her case with her sister -in-law without her
permission. Ms. Matecun also claimed that respondent lied about settling the matter
several times. Ms. Matecun stopped receiving medical benefits due to respondent’s
failure to pursue the matter, and she eventually hired attorney James Smith to
complete the matter. Mr. Smith indicated he tried numerous times to contact
respondent via telephone, text messages, fax, and email to request Ms. Matecun’s
client file but was unsuccessful. He was, however, ultimately able to settle the matter
for Ms. Matecun.
In November 2019, Ms. Matecun filed a disciplinary complaint against
respondent. The ODC mailed notice of the complaint to respondent via certified
mail, but the notice was returned unclaimed. On March 9, 2020, the ODC’s
investigator hand-delivered a copy of the complaint to respondent. He failed to
submit a response.

Count II
Jessica Weaver hired respondent to represent her in a worker’s compensation
matter. According to Ms. Weaver, after retaining respondent, he failed to
communicate with her and failed to arrange for her medical treatment as promised.
Ms. Weaver explained that respondent “kept pretending he was doing his best to get
me care” but instead “strung me along for an entire year then disappeared.” Ms.
Weaver eventually hired a new attorney, who requested that respondent provide Ms.
Weaver’s client file. However, respondent failed to do so.

3

In February 2020, Ms. Weaver filed a disciplinary complaint against
respondent. The ODC mailed notice of the complaint to respondent via certified
mail, but the notice was returned unclaime d. On March 9, 2020, the ODC’s
investigator hand-delivered a copy of the complaint to respondent. He failed to
submit a response.

Count III
Layne Poirrier hired respondent to represent him in a workers’ compensation
matter. After the initial meeting, respondent failed to communicate with Mr.
Poirrier, who eventually hired attorney Robert Snyder. Mr. Snyder learned that
respondent failed to file anything on Mr. Poirrier’s behalf, causing the matter to be
dismissed. According to Mr. Snyder, Mr. Poirrie r was entitled to approximately
$50,000 for his injuries. In August 2020, Mr. Snyder filed a malpractice lawsuit
against respondent on Mr. Poirrier’s behalf. Respondent was served with the lawsuit
but failed to timely answer same.
In June 2020, Mr. Poir rier filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent.
The ODC mailed notice of the complaint to respondent via certified mail, but the
notice was returned unclaimed. On September 16, 2020, the ODC personally served
respondent with a subpoena to take his sworn statement on October 6, 2020.
Respondent failed to appear for the sworn statement and failed to submit a response
to Mr. Poirrier’s complaint.

Count IV
In 2016, Cassia McGovern hired respondent to represent her in a workers’
compensation matter. Ms. McGovern informed respondent that her workers’
compensation payments had stopped, and he indicated he would refile her claim.
However, he failed to do so. By June 2017, Ms. McGovern had been fired from her

4

job for failing to return to work. When w orkers’ compensation refused to approve
her medical treatment, she was unable to continue receiving care. Ms. McGovern
tried to contact respondent for months, but he failed to communicate with her.
In February 2019, Ms. McGovern filed a disciplinary complaint against
respondent. The ODC mailed notice of the complaint to respondent via certified
mail, but the notice was returned marked “not deliverable as addressed” and “unable
to forward.” On April 16, 2019, the ODC hand-delivered a copy of the complaint to
respondent. On May 28, 2019, the ODC personally served respondent with a
subpoena to take his sworn statement on June 6, 2019. Respondent failed to appear
for the sworn statement and failed to submit a response to Ms. McGovern’s
complaint. He did, however, provide the ODC with a copy of Ms. McGovern’s
client file.

Count V
In October 2013, Veronica Dennis hired respondent to represent her in a
workers’ compensation matter. Respondent failed to communicate with Ms. Dennis
and abandoned the representation. Ms. Dennis’ doctor refused to continue her care
because respondent was not pursuing the claim. According to Ms. Dennis, the
insurance company wanted to settle the claim but could not do so because of
respondent’s failure to respond.
In May 2019, Ms. Dennis filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent.
The ODC mailed notice of the complaint to respondent via certified mail, but the
notice was returned marked “attempted – not known” and “unable to forward.” The
ODC then hand-delivered a copy of the complaint to respondent. On June 20, 2019,
the ODC personally served respondent with a subpoena to take his sworn statement
on August 12, 2019. Respondent failed to appear for the sworn statement and failed

5

to submit a response to Ms. Dennis’ complaint. He did, however, provide the ODC
with a copy of Ms. Dennis’ client file.

21-DB-063
In January 2018, Shirley McLin hired respondent to complete the settlement
of her deceased husband’s workers’ compensation claim, providing him with the
documentation needed to proceed with the claim. At some point in 2018, respondent
relocated his office. Thereafter, respondent failed to communicate with Ms. McLin
despite her numerous attempts to contact him.
In an attempt to talk to respondent, Ms. McLin went to his new office location
where she encountered his wife. According to respondent’s wife, their bank
accounts and cell phones were hacked, and they had to start over with everything;
therefore, they were only using one cell phone at the moment. Respondent’s wife
scheduled an appointment for Ms. McLin with respondent, but he never showed up
for the meeting. At their next scheduled meeting, respondent reviewed Ms. McLin’s
file and informed Ms. McLin he was working on the matter and would contact her
soon. In October 2018, respondent informed Ms. McLin that he had filed a lawsuit
on her behalf. Ms. McLin was not able to contact respondent again until January
2019 when he informed her that he was awaiting some documents and would contact
her when he receiv ed them. In March 2020, respondent informed Ms. McLin that
he was no longer handling workers’ compensation matters and would provide her
new attorney with her client file. Ms. McLin hired a new attorney, but respondent
failed to provide the attorney with her file, despite numerous attempts to retrieve it.
When Ms. McLin contacted the court where respondent had filed her lawsuit, she
learned that the court dismissed the case in October 2019. She also learned that
respondent had been ineligible to practice law since 2019.

6

In December 2020 , Ms. McLin filed a disciplinary complaint against
respondent. The ODC mailed notice of the complaint to respondent via certified
mail, but the notice was returned marked “not deliverable as addressed” and “unable
to forward.” On March 22, 2021, the ODC’s investigator attempted to hand-deliver
notice of the complaint to respondent at his primary and secondary registration
addresses. However, the investigator was unable to locate respondent and left a note
for him to contact the ODC. Respondent never contacted the ODC.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In June 2021, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent in 21-DB-037,
alleging that his 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 with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing
a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.16 ( obligations upon
termination of the representation), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its
investigation), and 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct) . In
November 2021, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent in 21 -DB-063,
alleging that his conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of
Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 8.1(c) , and 8.4(a). The ODC filed a
motion to consolidate these matters, which motion was granted by the hearing
committee in January 2022.
Respondent failed to answer either set of 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 committe e written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue of
sanctions. Respondent filed nothing for the committee’s consideration.

7

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the ODC’s deemed admitted submission, the hearing
committee acknowledged that th e f actual allegations in the formal charges are
deemed admitted. The committee found that respondent has abandoned his clients
and the practice of law and consistently exhibited a reckless disregard for the Rules
of Professional Conduct. After specifically noting respondent’s prior disciplinary
record and his lack of cooperation in th is disciplinary proceeding, the committee
determined respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the
formal charges.
The committee then determined respondent knowingly, and possibly
intentionally, violated duties owed to h is clients. His conduct caused significant
harm to his clients as well as to the legal profession. Relying on the ABA ’s
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , the committee determined the baseline
sanction is disbarment.
In aggravation, the committee found the following factors: a prior disciplinary
record, a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad
faith obstruction of the disciplin ary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply
with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, vulnerability of the victims,
substantial experience in the practice of law, and indifference to making restitution.
The committee determined that no mitigating factors are present.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the committee determined that
the court has imposed sanctions ranging from a three-year suspension to permanent
disbarment in cases involving attorneys who have harmed several c lients by
abandoning the practice of law. In support, the committee cited the following cases:
In re: Pittman, 11-2203 (La. 12/16/11), 76 So. 3d 425 (a three-year suspension and
payment of restitution for neglect ing legal matters, fail ing to communicate w ith
clients, failing to refund unearned fees and properly terminate representation s, and

8

failing to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations); In re: Boyer, 09-1740 (La.
1/22/10), 26 So. 3d 139 (disbarment and payment of restitution for neglecting legal
matters, failing to communicate with clients, failing to refund unearned fees, writing
an NSF check to a client in the amount of $10,354.88, and failing to cooperate with
the ODC in its investigations); and In re: Straub, 08-2354 (La. 1/30/09), 999 So. 2d
1123 (permanent disbarment and payment of restitution for neglecting numerous
legal matters, fail ing to communicate with numerous clients, fail ing to refund
approximately $43,000 in unearned fees, obtaining a loan from a client and then
failing to repay the loan, and failing to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations).
Under these circumstances, the committee recommended respondent be
permanently disbarred.
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. a rt. 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 w e 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 S o.2d 714; In re: Pardue , 93 -2865 (La.
3/11/94), 633 So.2d 150.
The record in this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent
neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to provide client

9

files upon request, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. This
conduct amounts to a violation of 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 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).
The record further supports a finding that respondent knowingly, if not
intentionally, violated duties owed to his clients, causing significant actual harm.
The record supports the aggravating factors found by the committee with the
exception of indifference to making restitution. There are no mitigating factors
discernible from the record.
Based on our review of the record, we agree respondent’s misconduct is
serious in nature and warrant s disbarment. However, we do not find th e record
demonstrates respondent’s actions are so egregious as to demonstrate a convincing
lack of ethical and moral fitness to practice law , nor do we find there has been a
showing that there is no reasonable expectation of significant rehabilitation in
respondent’s character in the future. Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10(A)(1).
Accordingly, we decline to accept the comm ittee’s recommendation of permanent
disbarment and instead impose disbarment .
2 In doing so, however, we caution

2 Although neither party objected to the committee’s recommendation, we do not find briefing or
oral argument pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G)(1)(a) is necessary. As we have
explained in prior cases, permanent disbarment is not a distinct sanction from disbarment; rather,

10

respondent that he will be required to show compelling evidence of rehabilitation
before we consider any application for readmission.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee,
and considering the record, it is ordered that William K. Hawkins, Louisiana Bar
Roll number 18941, be and he hereby is disbarred. His name shall be stricken from
the roll of attorneys and his license to practice law in the State of Louisiana shall be
revoked. 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.

it is simply a limitation on the lawyer’s right to seek readmission. See In re: Laudumiey & Mann,
03-0234 (La. 6/27/03), 849 So.2d 515, 521 (explaining that “the most serious sanction a lawyer
may receive under Rule XIX is the sanction of disbarment” and that the amendment providing for
permanent disbarment only “relates to the ability of a disbarred attorney to seek readmission”) ;
see also In re : Edwards, 04- 0290 (La. 7/2/04), 879 So. 2d 718, 723 at n.7 (explaining the
amendments providing for permanent disbarment “do not represent a substantive change to the bar
disciplinary rules, nor do they result in the adoption of a new sanction which did not previously
exist”).