In Re: Richard Forrest White

Supreme Court of Louisiana
February 24, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: RICHARD FORREST WHITE
No. 2022-B-01701
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
February 24, 2023
Disbarment imposed. See per curiam.
Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
McCallum, J., dissents for reasons assigned by Justice Crichton.
JDH
JLW
JTG
WJC
PDG
02/24/2023 "See News Release 011 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2022-B-1701
IN RE: RICHARD FORREST WHITE
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
PERCURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Richard Forrest White, an
attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently ineligible to practice. 1
PROCEDURAL IDSTORY
In January 2021, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent under
disciplinary board docket number 21-DB-006. In May 2021, the ODC filed formal
charges against respondent under disciplinary board docket number 21-DB-031.
Respondent failed to answer either set of formal charges. Accordingly, the factual
allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and
convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX,
§ l l(E)(3).
The two sets of formal charges were considered by separate hearing
committees. No formal hearings were held, but the parties were given an opportunity
to file with the committees written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue
of sanctions. Respondent filed nothing for either committee's consideration.
1 Respondent has been ineligible to practice law since June 18, 2021 for failing to comply with the
mandatory continuing legal education requiremen ts. Thereafter, he was declared ineligible for
failing to pay his bar dues and the disciplinary assessment as well for failing to submit his trust
account information. Respondent is also admitted to the practice of law in Missouri and
Washington. However, he is ineligible to practice law in bothjurisdiction.s for failing to pay fees.
February 24, 2023
02/24/23

Before being considered by the disciplinary board, the matters were
consolidated. The board then filed a single reco=endation in this court
encompassing both sets of formal charges.
21-DB-006
FORMAL CHARGES
Count I - The LaFleur Matter
In August 2015, Jasmine LaFleur hired respondent to represent her with
respect to a worker's compensation claim and a related lawsuit. Respondent never
filed any pleadings on Ms. LaFleur's behalf: despite his repeated assurances to her
that he had done so. According to Ms. LaFleur, on several occasions, respondent
failed to respond to her inquiries regarding the status ofher legal matter to any degree
of satisfaction. Instead, he continued to make assurances to her that he had taken
care of everything, when in fact he had not done so.
In January 2019, Ms. LaFleur filed a disciplinary complaint against
respondent. Although respondent provided an initial response to the complaint, he
failed to cooperate with the ODC's investigation thereafter, including failing to
respond to the ODC's multiple emails and letters. Respondent also failed to appear
for his sworn statement scheduled for August 24, 2020. More specifically,
approximately thirty minutes before the sworn statement was to begin, respondent's
son informed the ODC that respondent was hospitalized. Respondent did not
respond to the ODC' s August 31, 2020 letter requesting proof of the hospitalization.
The ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 ( failure to co=unicate with
a client), 8.l(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), 8.4(c)
2

(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and
8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
Count II - The Criminal Conduct Matter
On May 22, 1995, respondent was scheduled to be arraigned on ten counts of
obtaining controlled dangerous substances by fraud. However, he failed to appear
in court, and on May 24, 1995, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. The bench
warrant remained active for more than five years before respondent fmally appeared
in court on January 5, 2001. At that time, he was found in contempt of court and
sentenced to serve five days in jail, with credit for time served. On February 16,
2001, respondent pleaded guilty to the ten counts of obtaining controlled dangerous
substances by fraud. He was placed on probation for two years, subject to certain
conditions, and ordered to pay a fine.
On February 20, 2020, respondent was arrested on charges of felony
possession of less than two grams of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance
and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. At this time, the matter is still
pending.2
Respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC's investigation of these matters,
which began in August 2020.
The ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 3.4(c) (knowing disobedience of an
obligation under the rules of a tribunal), 8.l(c), 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act
2 On March 12, 2021, the assistant district attorney handling respondent's case informed the ODC
that his "effort to contact Mr. White to offer him pre-trial diversion is still ongoing. I have reached
out to other attorneys who know him and may have found a way to contact him through his son.
However, if that does not prove to be fruitful, we will be filing a bill of information and moving
forward with the prosecution of the case." He also informed the ODC that the substance in
respondent's possession was tested and determined to be cocaine.
3

that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a
lawyer), and 8.4( d).
HEARING COMMITTEE REPORT
After considering the ODC's deemed admitted submission, the hearing
committee made factual findings consistent with the deemed admitted facts as set
forth in the formal charges. Based on these facts, the committee determined
respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.
The committee then determined respondent knowingly, if not intentionally,
violated duties owed to his client, the public, and the legal system, causing severe
harm to Ms. Lafleur. After considering the ABA' s Standards for Imposing Lawyer
Sanctions, the committee determined the baseline sanction is suspension.
In aggravation, the committee found bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary
proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the
disciplinary agency, deceptive practices during the disciplinary process,
vulnerability of the victim, substantial experience in the practice of law ( admitted
1994), and illegal conduct, including that involving the use of controlled substances.
In mitigation, the commi.ttee found only the absence of a prior disciplinary record.
Specifically citing respondent's long history of criminal conduct and his lack
of participation in this disciplinary proceeding, the committee recommended he be
permanently disbarred. The ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee's
report, arguing that the recommended sanction was overly harsh.
21-DB-031
FORMAL CHARGES
The Campbell Matter
4

In May 2018, respondent began representing Scott Campbell in a criminal
matter. Respondent represented Mr. Campbell in the case through Mr. Campbell's
plea of no contest to the charges and his sentencing, which occurred on December
18, 2019. Thereafter, Mr. Campbell made several written and verbal attempts to
contact respondent to request his file in order to proceed with post-conviction relief
Despite his efforts, Mr. Campbell was neither able to communicate with respondent
nor obtain his file.
In October 2020, Mr. Campbell filed a disciplinary complaint against
respondent. Despite the ODC's numerous attempts to contact respondent and obtain
his response to the complaint, respondent did not cooperate with the ODC's
investigation.
The ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d) (obligations upon
termination of the representation), 8.l(c), and 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct).
HEARING COMMITTEE REPORT
After considering the ODC's deemed admitted submission, the hearing
committee adopted the deemed admitted factual allegations set forth in the formal
charges as its factual findings. Based on these facts, the committee determined
respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.
The committee then determined respondent knowingly, if not intentionally,
violated duties owed to his client, the public, the legal system, and the legal
profession. His conduct caused significant harm to his client. After considering the
ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined the
baseline sanction is suspension.
5

In aggravation, the committee found the following factors present: a pattern
of misconduct, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally
failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, deceptive
practices during the disciplinary process, vulnerability of the victim, and substantial
experience in the practice of law. In mitigation, the committee found only the
absence of a prior disciplinary record.
After further considering this court's pnor case law addressing similar
misconduct, the committee recommended respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for one year and one day.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee's
report. Nevertheless, as stated above, this matter was consolidated with 21-DB-006,
and both matters were reviewed by the disciplinary board.
21-.DB-006 & 21-.DB-031
.DISCIPLINARY HOARD RECOMMENDATION
After review of the record and deemed admitted facts in. both sets of formal
charges, the disciplinary board agreed with the hearing committees that respondent
violated th.e Rules of Professional Conduct as charged. The board th.en detennined
respondent knowingly and intentionally violated duties owed to his clients, the
public, the legal system, and the legal profession.
According to the board, respondent's conduct caused serious actual harm to
Ms. LaFleur and potential harm to Mr. Campbell. Respondent's criminal conduct
caused actual harm to the public and to the legal profession's reputation. He also
caLL�ed delays in the criminal justice system by evading criminal charges, and his
failure to cooperate with the ODC's investigations damaged the legal profession and
the disciplinary system.
6

Based upon the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the board
determined the baseline sanction ranges from suspension to disbarment. The board
found the following aggravating factors present: a dishonest or selfish motive, 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, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct,
vulnerability of the victim, substantial experience in the practice of law, and illegal
conduct, including that involving the use of controlled substances. Like the
committees, the board found the absence of a prior disciplinary record to be the sole
mitigating factor present.
After further considering this court's pnor case law addressing similar
misconduct, the board recommended respondent be disbarred. The board further
recommended respondent be ordered to return Mr. Campbell's file.
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
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. Supreme Court Rule XIX, §
1 l(E)(3). Thus, the ODC bears no additional burden to prove the factual allegations
contained in the formal charges after those charges have been deemed admitted.
However, the language of§ l l(E)(3) does not encompass legal conclusions that flow
7

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 admitted factual allegations. In re: Donnan, 01-3058 (La.
1/10/03), 838 So. 2d 715.
The records of these two deemed admitted matters support a finding that
respondent neglected a legal matter and continuously misled the client about the
status of the legal matter, engaged in criminal conduct involving illegal drugs, failed
to appear for his arraignment and evaded a bench warrant for more than five years,
ignored a client's multiple requests for the return of his file, and failed to cooperate
with. the ODC in three investigations. Based upon these facts, respondent has
violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as follows:
1. He violated Rules 1.3 and 8.4( d) by neglecting Ms. Lafleur' s legal matter;
2. He violated Rules 1.4 and 8.4(c) by continuously misleading Ms. LaFleur
regarding the status of her legal matter;
3. He violated Rules 3.4(c) and 8.4(d) by failing to appear in court for his
arraignment and then evading a bench warrant for more than five years;
4. He engaged in criminal conduct on multiple occasions, in violation of Rule
8.4(b);
5. He again violated Rule 1. 4 by failing to communicate with Mr. Campbell
regarding the return of his file;
6. He violated Rule 1.16(d) by failing to return Mr. Campbell's file despite
numerous requests;
7. He failed to cooperate with th.e ODC in its three investigations, in violation of
Rule 8.l(c); and
8. By violating the Rules of Professional Conduct as discussed above, he
violated Rule 8.4(a).
8

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).
Respondent knowingly and intentionally violated duties owed to his clients,
the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. His conduct caused actual and
potential harm. We agree with the disciplinary board that the baseline sanction is in
the range of a suspension to disbarment. We also agree with the aggravating and
mitigating factors found by the board.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, case law suggests that the
baseline sanction for respondent's combined misconduct in the LaFleur and
Campbell matters is a suspension from the practice of law for one year and one day.
See In re: Taylor, 14-0646 (La. 5/23/14), 139 So. 3d 1004, in which we imposed a
suspension for one year and one day upon an attorney who neglected a legal matter,
failed to communicate with a client, failed to promptly return a client's file upon
request, failed to refund an unearned fee, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in
its investigation. With the exception of failing to refund an unearned fee,
respondent's misconduct is identical, if not worse, than the misconduct in Taylor.
Regarding respondent's criminal conduct, the case of In re: Martin, 18-0900 (La.
9/21/18), 252 So. 3d 867, is instructive. In Martin, an attorney possessed drug
paraphernalia associated with heroin use, possessed cocaine, engaged in a sexual
relationship with a client and introduced the client to drugs, represented the client
9

while she was ineligible to practice law, was involved in a motor vehicle accident
while driving with a suspended driver's license, and was a fugitive from justice with
multiple warrants issued for her arrest. For this miscond uct, we imposed disbarment.
Arguably, respondent's conduct is not as egregious as the misconduct in Martin, in
that respondent did not engage in a sexual relationship with a client, did not get into
an accident while driving with a suspended license, and did not represent any clients
while he was ineligible to practice law. Nevertheless, we find the discipline imposed
in Taylor and Martin supports disbarment as the overall sanction for the entirety of
respondent's misconduct in both sets of formal charges.
Accordingly, we will adopt the board's recommendation and disbar
respondent. We will further order respondent to return Mr. Campbell's file.
DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committees
and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered tha t Richard Forrest
White, Louisiana Bar Roll number 22892, 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. It is further ordered that respondent shall provide
Scott Campbell with his client file. 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 thi.s court's judgment
until paid.
10