In Re: Toni Rachelle Martin

Supreme Court of Louisiana
October 01, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: TONI RACHELLE MARTIN
No. 2024-B-00685
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
October 01, 2024
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
JLW
SJC
JTK
WJC
JBM
PDG
10/01/2024 "See News Release 044 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 202
4-B-0685
I
N RE: TONI RACHELLE MARTIN
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, Toni Rachelle Martin , an
attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana.
U
NDERLYING FACTS
In 2019, David Walker hired respondent to interdict his mother, paying a
$1,500 fee. Before any pleadings were filed, the mother died. Mr. Walker requested
a refund of the fee. Although respondent agreed to return the fee, she repeatedly
delayed doing so. When more than two years passed without a refund, Mr. Walker
filed suit against respondent in Alexandria City Court. In June 2022, Mr. Walker
secured a judgment in his favor. Respondent agreed to a payment plan to resolve
the debt and made a $300 payment, but no further payments occurred. In February
2023, Mr. Walker filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Respondent
returned the remainder of the fee shortly after her sworn statement was taken by the
ODC.
DIS
CIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In July 2023, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging that
her conduct as set forth above violated Rules 1.5(f)(5) (failure to refund an unearned
fee) and 1.16(d) (obligations upon the termination of the representation) of the Rules
10/01/24

2

of Professional Conduct. Respondent answered the formal charges and indicated
that her failure to return the balance of Mr. Walker’s fee was “never intended as a
willful act of disobedience but rather a lack of means to do so.” Respondent added
that she did not appear at the hearing in Alexandra City Court due to a death in her
family.

Formal Hearing
The matter proceeded to a formal hearing conducted by the hearing committee
on November 15, 2023. The ODC was represented by Deputy Disciplinary Counsel
Harrel L. Wilson, Jr. Respondent did not appear at the hearing. The ODC introduced
documentary evidence and called David Walker to testify before the committee.

Hearing Committee Report
The hearing committee provided a summary of the ODC’s evidence regarding
respondent’s representation. The pertinent parts of that summary are as follows:
Mr. Walker and his sister met separately with respondent for the purpose of
interdicting their mother, who was in the early stages of dementia, and they signed
affidavits that were prepared by respondent for the interdiction filings. Respondent
agreed to handle the matter for a $1,500 flat fee, which Mr. Walker paid.
Respondent later informed Mr. Walker that the pleadings had been filed, but
Mr. Walker’s sister then checked at the courthouse and discovered no pleadings were
filed. When Mr. Walker confronted respondent, she indicated that the paperwork
may have been lost when she relocated her office. Respondent further indicated that
she would need to prepare other affidavits and then file the interdiction. However,
the mother had died, and the interdiction was never filed.
Mr. Walker testified that the lack of an interdiction complicated his mother’s
affairs. After respondent offered to prepare the affidavits to replace those lost, Mr.

3

Walker had no further communication with respondent until late 2021, when he sent
her a text message demanding a refund.1
On the day that Mr. Walker filed suit against respondent, she issued a $300
cashier’s check made payable to Mr. Walker. However, he did not immediately
negotiate the check for fear that it may be argued that he compromised his claim.
In her answer to Mr. Walker’s suit, respondent indicated that she owed the
money and wished to work out a payment plan. On June 29, 2022, the day of trial,
the Alexandria City Court signed a judgment in favor of Mr. Walker for $1,500 plus
judicial interest. Respondent does not seem to have worked out a payment plan with
the court, and she did not work out a plan with Mr. Walker. On February 14, 2023,
Mr. Walker filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC.
The committee also summarized respondent’s answer to the complaint and
her sworn statement. The pertinent parts of that summary are as follows:
In her answer to the complaint, respondent explained she did not immediately
refund the entirety of Mr. Walker’s fee as she was in necessitous circumstances ,
having been furloughed from her job as a public defender during the months of April,
May, and June of 2020 due to the COVID-19 shutdowns. Respondent also explained
that while she could not attend trial due to a death in the family, she offered to pay
Mr. Walker $200 per month over six months to satisfy his demand for a refund.
During her sworn statement, held on April 5, 2023, respondent indicated that
she is employed at the Southern Poverty Law Center.2 Respondent testified that she
was retained by Mr. Walker’s sister and that they agreed to a flat -fee arrangement
whereby respondent would receive $400 for filing the interdiction and $1,100 for
the remainder. At the time, respondent was employed as an indigent defender in the

1 The evidence reflects that the communications began in 2020, not 2021, and consisted of emails,
not text messages.

2 Respondent stated that she plans to relocate to Atlanta and to be admitted to the Georgia Bar.

4

Ninth and Seventh Judicial Districts and her private practice was extremely limited.
Respondent testified that she did not deposit the funds into a client trust account
because she does not maintain one.3 Respondent testified that she had wanted to file
the interdiction earlier but was delayed because Mr. Walker’s sister did not come to
her office to sign the paperwork until late October 2019. Respondent further testified
that she was in the process of relocating her office during this time and thought the
interdiction had been filed.
After considering the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, the
committee made the following findings of fact:
Mr. Walker presented credible testimony about the events surrounding the
representation. Mr. Walker candidly admitted that his recollection of some facts is
cloudy. It is evident that he was deeply dissatisfied with the level of representation
he received. He was also very unhappy with the inordinate delay in refunding his
fee. There is no dispute regarding the timing of the fee; Mr. Walker only got a refund
after he demanded it, filed suit, obtained a judgment, and filed a complaint. Nothing
short of a stern warning from the ODC at respondent’s sworn statement convinced
her that this was a serious matter. Meanwhile, Mr. Walker, a retired and disabled
veteran, had to wait more than three years for a refund.
Based upon these findings, the committee determined that respondent violated
the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged. The committee explained:
Under Rule 1.5(f)(5), respondent was required to immediately refund the
amount of the fee that she and Mr. Walker agreed was unearned. Respondent
conceded that Mr. Walker was due a $1,500 refund, and the ODC has proven by
clear and convincing evidence that she did not immediately refund that unearned fee.
Rule 1.16(d) requires an attorney upon the termination of representation to “take

3 Respondent testified that she did not believe she needed a trust account for matters such as the
interdiction. The ODC confirmed that she did not have to put the flat fee into a trust account.

5

steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interest,” including
“refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or
incurred.” The ODC has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the refund
was not effected to the extent reasonably practicable.
The committee determined respondent knowingly violated duties owed to her
client and the legal profession, and her actions caused actual harm. Mr. Walker was
deprived of his funds from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic through 2023, and
respondent’s recalcitrance in not repaying the unearned fee cast the legal profession
in a bad light. Relying on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the
committee determined the applicable baseline sanction is suspension.
The committee found the following aggravating factors are present: a prior
disciplinary record,
4 “refusal to accept the seriousness of the charges,” substantial
experience in the practice of law (admitted 1992), and indifference to making
restitution. The committee added that “[t]hroughout the saga of the representation,
continuing into Mr. Walker’s pursuit of a refund of unearned fees, right through the
disciplinary process, every untoward event has been excused by respondent.”
5 The
committee noted that respondent “does not really, genuinely, accept responsibility
for either her lack of diligence (for which no formal charges were brought) or her
failure to refund Mr. Walker’s money.” Finally, the committee noted that although
respondent urged that she was un able to refund the money because she had been
furloughed from her job for three months, that was in 2020, and she took no steps
toward refunding the money until 2022.

4 In 2012, respondent was admonished for failing to fulfill her professional obligations and for
practicing law while ineligible.

5 The committee listed the following excuses provided by respondent: Mr. Walker and his sister
delayed signing the initial paperwork; the pleadings were lost; COVID-19; her phone was hacked;
she had to attend a funeral; FedEx took over a month to deliver papers form Pineville to Baton
Rouge; and Mr. Walker failed to tell respondent of his mother’s death.

6

The committee found that the only mitigating factor present is remoteness of
prior offenses. The committee declined to recognize the mitigating factors of full
and free disclosure to the disciplinary board and cooperative attitude toward the
proceedings, which respondent argued for in her prehearing memorandum. The
committee explained that she was not cooperative with respect to the hearing.6
Considering these circumstances, and the prior jurisprudence of this court in
similar cases, the committee recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for six months, with three months deferred, followed by one year of
probation durin g which she shall attend the Louisiana State Bar Association’s
(“LSBA”) Ethics and Trust Accounting Schools. The committee also recommended
that respondent be assessed with the costs and expenses of these proceedings.
The hearing committee filed its report on December 11, 2023. On January 2,
2024, the disciplinary board received correspondence from the ODC that included a
letter from respondent. In the correspondence, Deputy Disciplinary Counsel Susan
C. Kalmbach
7 suggested that respondent’s letter, dated December 20, 2023, could
be interpreted as an appeal from the committee’s report and recommendation. 8 In
light of the letters from both Ms. Kalmbach and respondent, the matter was docketed
for argument before a panel of the board.

6 The committee explained that on the day prior to the hearing, respondent and the board engaged
in communications regarding a continuance, but no motion was filed. The exchange resulted in the
public member believing the hearing would not take place, and a s a result, she had to participate
in the hearing via Zoom. The proceeding was also substantially delayed while the host arranged
to technically accommodate the meeting, which respondent did not attend. Respondent provided
no explanation for her absence.

7 On November 22, 2023, Ms. Kalmbach was substituted as counsel for the ODC.

8 In her letter, respondent stated that her mother attempted to contact Mr. Wilson on the day prior
to the hearing, to no avail, but did speak to Mr. Wilson on the morning of the hearing to request a
continuance. The request was based on respondent’s medical incapacity to participate because of
recent seizures she experienced, but Mr. Wilson would not consent to the continuance. Respondent
asserted that she had medical records to substantiate the occurrence of the seizures as well as other
health problems she experienced in the months prior to the hearing.

7

Disciplinary Board Recommendation

A panel of the disciplinary board heard oral argument in this matter on
February 29, 2024. 9 On May 30, 2024, the board filed its report in this court,
recommending that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months,
with three months deferred, followed by a one -year period of probation with
attendance at Ethics School.
After review, the board determined that the hearing committee provided an
accurate summary of the evidence presented, with minor clarifications, and further
determined that the factual findings of the committee are not manifestly erroneous,
are supported by the record, and adopted same. Based upon these facts, the board
concluded that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, as charged.
The board indicated that these conclusions are supported by the evidence for the
reasons stated in the committee’s report.
The board determined that respondent knowingly violated a duty owed to her
client. She caused harm to her client, who was deprived of his funds for over three
years. Her failure to return the fee resulted in a public court claim against her and
potentially caused damage to the public’s image of the legal profession. Relying on
the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , the board determined the
baseline sanction is suspension.
The board found that the following aggravating factors are present: a prior
disciplinary record, a dishonest or selfish motive, refusal to acknowledge the
wrongful nature of the conduct, substantial experience in the practice of law, and

9 At the close of business on the day prior to oral argument, respondent sent an email to the board
with a copy of a letter, dated February 21, 2024, to Ms. Kalmbach from respondent. In the letter,
respondent stated that she disagreed with the decision of the committee but was not interested in
prolonging the disciplinary process. Attached to the email, and referenced in her letter, was a copy
of correspondence from an insurance company confirming approval of respondent’s claim for
disability benefits but also stating that respondent was allowed to work part-time under the policy.

8

indifference to making restitution. The board determined that the only mitigating
factor present is remoteness of prior offenses.
Considering these findings, and the prior jurisprudence of the court in similar
cases, the board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of
law for six months, with three months deferred, followed by a one -year period of
probation, during which respondent shall attend the LSBA’s Ethics School. The
board also recommended that respondent be assessed with the costs and expenses of
these proceedings.
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. While we 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 So.2d 714; In re: Pardue , 93 -2865 (La.
3/11/94), 633 So.2d 150.
The record in this matter supports a finding that respondent failed to timely
refund an unearned fee. This conduct 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

9

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 violated duties owed to her client. She acted knowingly, and her
conduct caused actual harm. The applicable baseline sanction is suspension. The
aggravating and mitigating factors found by the board are supported by the record.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, we find the case of In re:
Donald, 13-2056 (La. 11/1/13), 127 So. 3d 918, instructive. In Donald, an attorney
was paid $600 to cancel a judgment that was discharged in the client’s bankruptcy.
The attorney neglected the matter, failed to communicate with the client, and failed
to respond to the client’s request for a refund. The attorney acted knowingly, if not
intentionally, and caused harm by delaying the client’s case and depriving the client
of a refund. Aggravating factors included a prior disciplinary record (diversion), a
dishonest or selfish motive, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the
conduct, substantial experience in the practice of law, and indifference to making
restitution. The mitigating factor of personal and emotional problems was also
present. For this misconduct, the court suspended the attorney from the practice of
law for six months, fully deferred, subject to a one -year period of supervised
probation with the condition that he attend Ethics School and refund the fee to his
former client.
By comparison, respondent’s conduct is more egregious. She failed to refund
her client’s fee for nearly four years, even after a civil judgment was rendered against
her. Thereafter, respondent failed to participate in the disciplinary hearing. Under
the circumstances, we agree that a period of actual suspension is warranted.

10

Accordingly, we will adopt the disciplinary board’s recommendation and
suspend respondent from the practice of law for six months, with three months
deferred, followed by a one-year period of probation, during which respondent shall
attend the LSBA’s Ethics School.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee
and the disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Toni
Rachelle Martin, Louisiana Bar Roll number 21949, be and she hereby is suspended
from the practice of law for a period of six months. It is further ordered that three
months of this suspension shall be deferred. Following the completion of the active
portion of her suspension, respondent shall be placed on probation for a period of
one year . As a condition of probation, respondent is ordered to attend and
successfully complete the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Ethics School. The
probationary period shall commence from the date respondent and the ODC execute
a formal probation plan. Any failure of respondent to comply with the condition of
probation, or any miscon duct during the probationary period, may be grounds for
making the deferred portion of the suspension executory, or imposing additional
discipline, as appropriate. 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.