In Re: Richard Forrest White

Supreme Court of Louisiana
February 27, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: RICHARD FORREST WHITE
No. 2023-B-01624
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
February 27, 2024
Discipline imposed. See per curiam.
Genovese, J., concurs in the result.
Crain, J., concurs in the result.
McCallum, J., concurs in the result.
PDG
JLW
JDH
SJC
02/27/2024 "See News Release 009 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2
023-B-1624
I
N RE: RICHARD FORREST WHITE
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, Richard Forrest White .1
Respondent is currently disbarred for misconduct that occurred between 1995 and
2021. In re: White, 22-1701 (La. 2/24/23), 355 So. 3d 1085 (“White I”).
F
ORMAL CHARGES
In September 2016, James Zeno was injured in an automobile accident.
Thereafter, he hired respondent to handle his personal injury claim. On September
1, 2017, respondent fax -filed a petition for damages on Mr. Zeno’s behalf.
Respondent took no further action in the lawsuit, essentially allowing it to become
abandoned. He also failed to communicate with Mr. Zeno and then failed to return
Mr. Zeno’s file.
In August 2022, Mr. Zeno filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent.
The ODC attempted to notify respondent of the complaint via certified mail and
email but was unsuccessful. In late November 2022, the ODC’s investigator
personally served respondent with notice of the complaint. Nevertheless, respondent
failed to submit a response.
1 Respondent is also admitted to the practice of law in Missouri and Washington. However, he is
ineligible to practice law in both jurisdictions for failing to pay fees.
02/27/24

2

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In April 2023, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging that
his 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 communicate with a client), 1.16(d) (obligations upon
termination of the representation), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC), and
8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct). Respondent failed to answer
the formal char ges. 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 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 deemed admitted submission, the hearing
committee acknowledged that the factual allegations set forth in the formal charges
were deemed admitted when respondent failed to file an answer. Based upon the
deemed admitted facts, the committee determined respondent violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.
The committee then determined respondent negligently and knowingly
violated duties owed to his client, which caused the client harm. Relying on the
ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , the committee determined the
baseline sanction is suspension.
The committee found the following aggravating factors are 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, substantial

3

experience in the practice of law (admitted 1994), and indifference to making
restitution. The committee determined that no mitigating factors are present.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the committee concluded that
the application of the approach set forth in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain,
573 So. 2d 470 (La. 1991), is warranted. In Chatelain, the court held:
Since the attorney-respondent cannot control the timing of
the institution of disciplinary proceedings, it is generally
inappropriate to disbar a previously disbarred attorney an
additional time when the violations at issue occurred
before or concurrently with t he violations which resulted
in the initial disbarment. When a second disciplinary
proceeding against an attorney involves misconduct which
occurred during the same time period as the first
proceeding, the overall discipline to be imposed should be
determined as if both proceedings were before the court
simultaneously.

Respondent’s current misconduct occurred during the same time period as his
misconduct in White I. Nevertheless, the committee determined that the combined
misconduct would have resulted in no greater sanction than that imposed in White I.
Accordingly, the committee recommended respondent be adjudged guilty of
additional rule violations to be considered if and when he seeks readmission to the
practice of law.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the committee’s report
or recommendation. Therefore, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G), the
disciplinary 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.

4

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 admitted factual allegations. In re: Donnan , 01 -3058 (La.
1/10/03), 838 So. 2d 715.
The record of this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent
neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with his client, failed to return the
client’s file, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. Based upon
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 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 violated duties owed to his client and the legal
profession, which caused actual harm. We agreed with the hearing committee that
the baseline sanction for this misconduct, standing alone, is suspension.

5

We also agree with the committee that the approach set forth in Chatelain is
applicable here. Respondent’s current misconduct occurred during the same time
frame as his misconduct in White I. Therefore, based upon our holding in Chatelain,
the appropriate sanction would take into account respondent’s combined misconduct
from this matter as well as from White I.
In White I , we disbarred respondent for neglecting a legal matter and
continuously misleading the client about the status of the legal matter, engaging in
criminal conduct involving illegal drugs, failing to appear for his arraignment and
evading a bench warrant for mor e than five years, ignoring a client’s multiple
requests for the return of his file, and failing to cooperate with the ODC in three
investigations. T he addition of respondent’s current misconduct would have still
resulted in an order of disbarment in White I.
Accordingly, we will adopt the committee’s recommendation and adjudge
respondent guilty of additional rule violations to be considered if and when he seeks
readmission to the practice of law.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee,
and considering the record, it is ordered that Richard Forrest White, Louisiana Bar
Roll number 22892, be and he hereby is adjudged guilty of additional rule violations
warranting discipline, which shall be considered i n the event he seeks readmission
after becoming eligible to do so. 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.