In Re: Carl V. Williams

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 23, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: CARL V. WILLIAMS
No. 2025-B-00200
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 23, 2025
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
Griffin, J., dissents and would impose a lesser sanction.
JMG
JLW
JDH
WJC
JBM
CRC
04/23/2025 "See News Release 019 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2025-B-0200
IN RE: CARL V. WILLIAMS
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Carl V. Williams , an attorney
licensed to practice law in Louisiana.
PRIOR 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 1987.
In 1996, respondent was admonished by the disciplinary board for failing to
communicate with a client, failing to promptly return client funds, and failing to
cooperate with the ODC. In 2007, respondent was admonished by the disciplinary
board for failing to execute a written contingent fee agreement.
In 1998, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one year and
one day, with all but three months deferred, followed by a two -year period of
supervised probation, after he neglected a matter, failed to communicate with a
client, failed to safeguard client funds, and commingled and converted client funds.
In re: Williams, 98-0773 (La. 4/24/98), 709 So. 2d 211.
In 2011, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one year and
one day, with all but four months deferred, after he converted client funds and
engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. In re:

2

Williams, 10-2759 (La. 5/10/11), 62 So. 3d 751. The 2011 suspension was followed
by an additional ninety -day suspension for engaging in the practice of law while
suspended. In re: Williams, 11-1727 (La. 8/31/11), 69 So. 3d 414.
Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the misconduct at
issue in the instant matter.

FORMAL CHARGES
Respondent was hired to complete the succession of Alvin Banks, Sr., who
died in 2006. In December 2017, the heirs sold a piece of property. Respondent
distributed the proceeds to the heirs, with the exception of Alvin Banks, Jr. (“Mr.
Banks”). According to respondent, Mr. Banks was due $7,514.11 from the property
sale, but respondent had no contact information for him. Respondent indicated that
he held Mr. Banks’ funds in his client trust account until 2020, when he transferred
the funds to his personal account.
In November 2021, Mr. Banks filed a disciplinary complaint against
respondent. Respondent failed to timely respond to the complaint, necessitating the
issuance of a subpoena for his sworn statement on February 16, 2022. During his
sworn statement, respondent admitted that he failed to remit the funds to Mr. Banks
and transferred the funds to his personal account. On March 16, 2022, respondent
sent Mr. Banks a check in the amount of $9,090.48, representing his portion of the
sale proceeds plus interest.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In July 2024, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging his
conduct as set forth above violated Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence
and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client),
1.15(a) (safekeeping property of clients or third persons), 1.15(d) (failure to timely

3

remit funds to a client or third person), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in
its investigation), and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation) 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
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 and the exhibits in
the record, the hearing committee determined that the facts establish by clear and
convincing evidence that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as
charged.1
The committee determined respondent violated duties owed to his client and
the legal profession. Respondent acted knowingly, if not intentionally, causing
actual harm to Mr. Banks by depriving him of his funds from December 2017 to
March 2022. Relying on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the
committee determined the baseline sanction is suspension.
The committee determined the following aggravating factors are present: prior
disciplinary offenses, a dishonest or selfish motive, and substantial experience in the

1 Specifically, the committee found that respondent violated Rules 1.3 and 1.4 by failing to inform
Mr. Banks of the property sale and failing to promptly disburse the sale proceeds to him. The
committee found that respondent violated Rules 1.15(a) and 1.15(d) by failing to protect the sale
proceeds in his trust account and failing to promptly notify Mr. Banks of the existence of the funds.
The committee stated that respondent’s transfer of client and/or third -party funds from his trust
account to his personal account was dishonest, in violation of Rule 8.4(c). Finally, the committee
found that respondent’s failure to timely respond to the complaint , forcing the ODC to issue a
subpoena for his sworn statement, violated Rule 8.1(c).

4

practice of law. The committee also noted respondent’s “failure to cooperate with
ODC’s investigation and this proceeding.” In mitigation, the committee found a
delay in the disciplinary proceeding, noting that after receiving correspondence from
respondent in March 2022 indicating that he paid restitution to Mr. Banks, the ODC
took no further action until filing the instant formal charges in July 2024. The
committee also found in mitigation that respondent’s 1996 and 1998 disciplinary
matters are remote in time.
After further 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, requiring him to petition for reinstatement
should he cho ose to return to the practice of law . The committee further
recommended that respondent be assessed with all costs and expenses of this
proceeding.
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. 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.

5

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 f actual 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
neglected a matter, failed to communicate with a client, failed to safeguard and remit
client funds resulting in conversion, and engaged in dishonest conduct. However,
we do not find that the record supports a finding that respondent failed to cooperate
with the ODC in violation of Rule 8.1(c).
The committee found that respondent’s failure to timely respond to the
complaint, forcing the ODC to issue a subpoena for his sworn statement , violated
Rule 8.1(c). The record reveals that respondent appeared for the sworn statement,
provided the ODC with multiple, written responses, and returned the money owed
to Mr. Banks. While there is some evidence in the record that respondent initially
failed to timely resp ond to the ODC, it does not rise to the level of clear and
convincing proof of a violation of Rule 8.1(c).
Having found evidence of profession al 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).

6

The record supports a finding that respondent knowingly violated duties owed
to his client and the legal system. His conduct caused actual harm , depriving his
client of funds for several years. The baseline sanction for this type of misconduct
is suspension. Aggravating factors include prior disciplinary offenses, a dishonest
or selfish motive, and substantial experience in the practice of law.2 The mitigating
factors of a delay in the disciplinary proceeding and remoteness of respondent’s
1996 and 1998 discipline matters are also supported by the record.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, we agree with the committee’s
analysis of In re: Dumas , 15 -1570 (La. 2/4/16), 187 So. 3d 428 . Dumas was
suspended from the practice of law for two years after he was found guilty of failing
to timely disburse $7,400 to a client in a succession matter. Dumas was also found
to have extensive mismanagement of his trust account. As in Dumas, respondent
failed to fully and promptly disburse funds in a succession matter, which
necessitated the filing of a compla int by one of the heirs. Also similar to Dumas,
respondent has a lengthy disciplinary history for similar misconduct. However, in
this case there is no evidence that respondent’s mismanagement of his client trust
account rises to the level of the “extensive” mismanagement seen in Dumas.
Considering the facts of this case as a whole, we will adopt the hearing
committee’s recommendation and impose a one year and one day suspension,
necessitating a formal application for reinstatement should respondent wish to return
to the practice of law. In light of respondent’s lengthy disciplinary history, this court
will carefully scrutinize any application for reinstatement with a critical eye.

2 For the reasons provided above, we do not find support for the committee’s finding of the
aggravating factor of “failure to cooperate with ODC’s investigation and this proceeding.”

7

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee,
and considering the record, it is ordered that Carl V. Williams, Louisiana Bar Roll
number 18507, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for one year
and one day. 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.