Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite La. State Bar Ass'n v. Hinrichs, 486 So. 2d 116.

164 citing documents.

In re Yonter 930 So. 2d 956 La. 2006
In determining an appropriate sanction, the committee looked to Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, which sets forth general guidelines for evaluating disciplinary cases involving conversion and commingling of funds entrusted to a lawyer.
In re Decker 916 So. 2d 1023 La. 2005
Considering the above findings and the standards set forth in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, the committee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years.
In Re Madera 916 So. 2d 108 La. 2005
The baseline sanction for respondent's misconduct is undoubtedly disbarment according to both the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions and *116
In re DeJean 905 So. 2d 1065 La. 2005
See Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs
In re Woods 885 So. 2d 551 La. 2004
Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs
Explained In re Levith 884 So. 2d 1197 La. 2004
In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, we explained that the determination of an appropriate sanction in conversion cases often turns on several factors, including the lawyer’s state of mind.
In re Black 883 So. 2d 956 La. 2004
Considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions and Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, the committee determined the baseline sanction in this matter is disbarment.
In re Cicardo 877 So. 2d 980 La. 2004
See also Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs
In re Carr 874 So. 2d 823 La. 2004
See Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs
In re Lewis 872 So. 2d 1061 La. 2004
See In re: Sabludowsky, 00- *1066 0891 (La.6/16/00), (attorney given a three-year suspension for failure to pay a third-party medical provider from client settlement funds and failure to maintain an adequate balance in his trust account); In re: Graham, 02-2789 (La.1/31/03), (after considering the [Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v.] Hinrichs [ ] test, the court imposed a three-year suspension on an attorney who failed to remit funds to medical providers, converted the funds, and then failed to cooper
In re Scheurich 871 So. 2d 1104 La. 2004
1 Citing Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, the committee recommended that respondent be suspended for three years.
In re Graugnard 869 So. 2d 785 La. 2004
In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, we set forth the elements which make disbarment appropriate in a conversion case: In a typical case of disbarment for violation of DR 9-102 [now Rule 1.15], one or more of the following elements are usually present: the lawyer acts in bad faith and intends a result inconsistent with his client’s interest; t
In re Lacobee 866 So. 2d 237 La. 2004
In determining an appropriate sanction, the board primarily relied upon Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, particularly considering respondent’s conversion of the costs advanced by Dr. Dorsett.
Fg Bruschweiler (Antiques) v. Gba 860 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
Aymond, supra; W. Prosser & W. Keeton, Torts, § 15 at 98-99 (5th ed.1984).
In re Kerth 865 So. 2d 21 La. 2003
Relying on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions and the prior jurisprudence, in particular Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, the board agreed that an eighteen-month suspension is appropriate in this case.
In re Shields 858 So. 2d 407 La. 2003
Relying on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions and Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, the board determined the baseline sanction for this misconduct is disbarment.
In Re Wittenbrink 849 So. 2d 18 La. 2003
: Under the disciplinary rules adopted by this court, a lawyer must deposit all funds of clients and funds belonging in part to a client and in part presently or potentially to himself in an identifiable clients' trust account separate from his operating account.
Explained In re Denhollem 849 So. 2d 488 La. 2003
In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, we explained the typical elements which are found in a disbarment case based on conversion: In a typical case of disbarment for violation of DR 9-102 [now Rule 1.15], one or more of the following elements are usually present: the lawyer acts in bad faith and intends a result inconsistent with his client’s i
In re Graham 841 So. 2d 707 La. 2003
In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, we set forth guidelines for imposing discipline in a conversion case: In a typical case of disbarment for violation of DR 9-102 [now Rule 1.15], one or more of the following elements are usually present: the lawyer acts in bad faith and intends a result inconsistent with his client’s interest; the lawyer co
In re Woods 841 So. 2d 713 La. 2003
In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, we set forth the elements which make disbarment appropriate in a conversion case: In a typical case of disbarment for violation of DR 9-102 [now Rule 1.15], one or more of the following elements are usually present: the lawyer acts in bad faith and intends a result inconsistent with his *718 client’s intere
In re Donnan 838 So. 2d 715 La. 2003
In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hin-richs, we set forth guidelines for imposing discipline in cases involving conversion of client funds: In a typical case of disbarment for violation of DR 9-102 [now Rule 1.15], one or more of the following elements are usually present: the lawyer acts in bad faith and intends a result inconsistent with his client’
In re Morphis 831 So. 2d 934 La. 2002
In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, we set forth the purpose behind disciplinary proceedings: The purposes of a disciplinary proceeding are to evaluate the character of a lawyer, in the light of his conduct and background, to determine whether he is morahy fit to continue in the practice of the law; and to remove him from the profession
In Re Hackman 833 So. 2d 916 La. 2002
we undertook an extensive review of the jurisprudence in conversion cases and set forth some guidelines for imposing sanctions in such cases.
In re Carter 829 So. 2d 1023 La. 2002
In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, we set out the factors which warrant disbarment in a disciplinary proceeding based on conversion: In a typical case of disbarment for violation of DR 9-102 [now Rule 1.15], one or more of the following elements are usually present: the lawyer acts in bad faith and intends a result inconsistent with his clie
In re Dumas 819 So. 2d 313 La. 2002
(two year suspension imposed on an attorney with substantial experience in the practice of law and an extensive prior disciplinary record for gross negligence in treatment of client funds resulting in personal benefit to the attorney); In re: Reed, 99-3435 (La.
In re Andrus 814 So. 2d 1283 La. 2002
See Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs
In re Dobbins 805 So. 2d 133 La. 2002
Following the guidelines set forth in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, a suspension from the practice of law of at least one year is warranted under these facts.
In re Poirrier 791 So. 2d 94 La. 2001
(disbarment imposed on attorney for neglect of a legal matter, failure to communicate, failure to account for and refund unearned fee, failure to withdraw as counsel upon discharge, and failure to attend deposition); In re Parker, 96-2697 (La.1/24/97), (attorney disbarred for conversion of client funds and failure to cooperate); and Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, (disbarment imposed on attorney for conversion of client funds).
In re Jefferson 789 So. 2d 569 La. 2001
See Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs
In re Callahan 782 So. 2d 624 La. 2001
Also relying on Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, the board recommended respondent be disbarred from the practice of law and ordered to pay restitution to his victims prior to submission of any application for readmission.
In re Grady 782 So. 2d 570 La. 2001
See Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, (La.
In re Rochon 776 So. 2d 432 La. 2001
The board found In re: Caver, 97-0823 (La.5/1/97), , instructive.
In re Harris 774 So. 2d 963 La. 2000
Considering these factors, the board relied on this court’s for the proposition that the baseline sanction for respondent’s misconduct was a one-year suspension.
Explained In re Keaty 769 So. 2d 1175 La. 2000
In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, we explained the typical elements which are found in a disbarment case based on conversion: In a typical case of disbarment ...
Explained In re Boone 766 So. 2d 533 La. 2000
In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, we explained the typical elements which are found in a disbarment case based on conversion: In a typical case of disbarment ...
In re Beard 762 So. 2d 618 La. 2000
Considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions and this court’s opinion in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, the committee concluded the baseline sanction for respondent’s misconduct is disbarment.
In re Sabludowsky 761 So. 2d 1283 La. 2000
*1285 Relying upon Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, the board determined that the baseline sanction for respondent’s misconduct is a three-year suspension.
In re Lain 760 So. 2d 1152 La. 2000
Under the guidelines set forth in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, the committee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day.
In re Henderson 761 So. 2d 523 La. 2000
Turning to the appropriate sanction, the board concluded the baseline sanction for respondent’s misconduct under Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, is a three-year suspension from the practice of law.
In re Boydell 760 So. 2d 326 La. 2000
The board pointed out that it had been unable to find any prior case dealing with “such egregious conduct.” At first glance, however, the board felt that disbarment was appropriate under Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, given that respondent clearly acted in bad faith, intended a result | ^inconsistent with his client’s interest, caused great expense and inconvenience to Mrs. Ratcliff, and did not make restitution until a judgment was rendered against him.
In re Mayeux 762 So. 2d 1072 La. 2000
The lawyer’s mistake, good faith, or lack of conscious wrongdoing does not negate an infraction of the rule, Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, but bears only on the penalty to be imposed.
In re McCann 752 So. 2d 155 La. 2000
Considering the guidelines set forth in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, and the numerous aggravating factors in this ease, we agree that disbarment is an appropriate sanction.
In re Bissel 752 So. 2d 850 La. 2000
8 Applying the guidelines set forth in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, we conclude the discipline recommended by the disciplinary board is appropriate.
In re Smith 752 So. 2d 798 La. 1999
In support of its recommendation of disbarment, the board cited In re: Banks, 99-0609 (La.5/7/99), ; In re: White, 97-2731 (La.2/6/98), ; and Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs
In re Gilbert 748 So. 2d 427 La. 1999
Under, the guidelines set forth in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, disbarment is an appropriate sanction for such misconduct.
Johnson v. Hardy 756 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
In Re Dyer 750 So. 2d 942 La. 1999
-23 (La.1986), and In re: Nichols, 98-2942 (La.12/18/98), , the committee found the baseline sanction is a three-year suspension.
In re Williams 744 So. 2d 621 La. 1999
Considering the circumstances, the board agreed that disbarment is the baseline sanction under Standard 4.11 of the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions and Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, and concurred with the hearing committee to recommend disbarment.
In re Watts 744 So. 2d 1278 La. 1999
2 Referring to the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions and Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, the committee recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law.
In Re Letellier 742 So. 2d 544 La. 1999

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by