In Re: Mamie Lenoria Franklin

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 02, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: MAMIE LENORIA FRANKLIN
No. 2023-B-00203
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: Office of Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and
Recommendations (Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 02, 2023
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
SJC
JLW
JDH
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
05/02/2023 "See News Release 021 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 202
3-B-0203
I
N RE: MAMIE LENORIA FRANKLIN
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Mamie Lenoria Franklin, an
attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana.
FO
RMAL CHARGES
In May 2016, Shaquitta Adger hired respondent to represent her three minor
children with respect to injuries they sustained in an automobile accident. In March
2017, respondent filed a petition for damages on behalf of Ms. Adger and her
children.
Thereafter, respondent failed to keep Ms. Adger reasonably informed about
the status of the lawsuit or respond to Ms. Adger’s requests for information.
Respondent also failed to communicate with opposing counsel or respond to
opposing counsel’s requests for discovery, resulting in opposing counsel filing two
separate motions to compel discovery. Respondent’s neglect of Ms. Adger’s legal
matter continued for approximately two and a half years.
In December 2019, Ms. Adger terminated respondent’s services via letter, text
message, and email. Ms. Adger also requested that respondent provide her with her
file as well as a letter withdrawing as her counsel. Respondent failed to do so.
Because respondent failed to file a motion to withdraw as Ms. Adger’s counsel,
05/02/23

2

opposing counsel would not negotiate the settlement of the lawsuit directly with Ms.
Adger.
In February 2020, the ODC received a disc iplinary complaint against
respondent from Ms. Adger. In response to the complaint, respondent admitted that
she had represented Ms. Adger on a contingency fee basis without reducing the fee
agreement to writing. She also indicated that, after she filed the lawsuit and the
defendant insurer hired counsel, she continued to correspond directly with the
insurer because opposing counsel would not give her an actual settlement number.
However, the insurer informed the ODC that, by March 27, 2017 (a couple of weeks
after the lawsuit was filed), all of its communication with respondent was through
the insurer’s counsel.
After showing opposing counsel a copy of the disciplinary complaint she had
filed against respondent, Ms. Adger was able to negotiate directly with opposing
counsel. Presumably, Ms. Adger was able to negotiate a satisfactory settlement
because, on July 14, 2020, she and opposing counsel filed a joint motion to dismiss
the lawsuit.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In June 2022, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging that
her conduct, as set forth above, 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 communicate with a client),
1.5(c) (contingency fee agreements), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the
representation), 3.2 (failure to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation), 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

3

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
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 submission, the hearing
committee determined that the factual allegations set forth in the formal charges
were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence. Based upon
those facts, as well as the documentary evidence in the record, 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 her client, the public, the legal system, and the legal
profession. Her conduct caused significant actual and potential harm to her client.
Relying on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee
determined the baseline sanction is suspension.
The committee found the following aggravating fa ctors present: a prior
disciplinary record (a 2017 diversion), 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, vulnerability of the
victims, and indifference to making restitution. The committee found that no
mitigating factors are supported by the record.
After considering the court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the committee recommended respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for one year and one day.
Respondent fax -filed an untimely objection to the committee’s report on
January 3, 2023 without service upon the ODC. The disciplinary board’s appellate

4

clerk telephoned respondent and informed her that the filing of her objection would
not be perfected until the board received an original of the objection and a certificate
of service upon the ODC, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, Appendix A, Rules
9(d) and 9(f). The board’s appellate cle rk also informed respondent that, because
her objection was filed one day late, she should file a motion for leave to file the
objection late. Because respondent filed nothing further with the board, her
objection was never perfected. Accordingly, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX,
§ 11(G), the board submitted the committee’s report directly 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
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. 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 record in this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent
failed to reduce a contingency fee agreement to writing, neglected a legal matter,

5

failed to communicate with a client, failed to provide the client with her file upon
written request, and failed to file a motion to withdraw after being terminated by the
client. Based upon these facts, respondent 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 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, if not intentionally, violated duties owed to her client,
the legal system, and the legal profession. She caused actual and potential harm to
her client and the legal system. We agree with the hearing committee that the
baseline sanction is suspension.
Aggravating factors include a prior disciplinary record, ba d faith obstruction
of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or
orders of the disciplinary agency, and refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of
the conduct. No mitigating factors are discernable from the record.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, our prior case law addressing
similar misconduct supports the sanction recommended by the committee. For
example, in In re: Clark , 22 -1332 (La. 11/8/22), 349 So. 3d 564, an attorney
neglected two legal ma tters she was handling for a client, failed to communicate
with the client, and failed to fully cooperate with the ODC’s investigation. For this
misconduct, we suspended the attorney from the practice of law for one year and one

6

day. Likewise, in In re: Collins, 19-1746 (La. 2/26/20), 290 So. 3d 173, an attorney
neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, and failed to protect
the client’s interests upon the termination of the representation. For this misconduct,
we suspended the attorney for one year and one day.
In light of this case law, and considering the lack of mitigating factors present,
we will adopt the committee’s recommendation and impose a suspension from the
practice of law for one year and one day.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee,
and considering the record, it is ordered that Mamie Lenoria Franklin, Louisiana Bar
Roll number 35408, be and she hereby is suspended from the practice of law for one
year and one d ay. 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.