DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

164 citing documents.

  • In re Elkins 740 So. 2d 107 La. 1999
    See Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs
  • In re Brough 738 So. 2d 531 La. 1999
    4 After referring to the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, and Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, the hearing committee *533 concluded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction, since respondent has injured a third party, made no attempts at restitution, and has ignored the disciplinary process.
  • In re Hilburn 737 So. 2d 27 La. 1999
    Citing the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 3 and Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, the hearing committee determined the baseline sanction for respondent’s misconduct was disbarment, due to his intentional and knowing failure to remit or account for client funds.
  • In re Caver 733 So. 2d 1208 La. 1999
    It determined the baseline sanction was disbarment, citing the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 3 and Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, as well 15as a prior disciplinary case involving respondent 4 .
  • In re Pisano 731 So. 2d 255 La. 1999
    Under the guidelines set forth in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, 5 disbarment is the appropriate sanction.
  • In re Gambel 733 So. 2d 1180 La. 1999
    disbarment is clearly the appropriate sanction under the facts of this case.
  • In re Fallin 731 So. 2d 221 La. 1999
    disbarment is clearly the appropriate sanction under the facts of this case.
  • In re Shields 731 So. 2d 223 La. 1999
    disbarment is clearly the appropriate sanction under the facts of this case.
  • In re Fergurson 730 So. 2d 429 La. 1998
    Relying on the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 3 the hearing committee determined the baseline sanction was disbarment.
  • In re Nichols 723 So. 2d 410 La. 1998
    The board observed that “in many areas of the state, lawyers are not prosecuted for theft of client funds when restitution has been made promptly, or when civil remedies are available.” While the board conceded respondent’s misconduct warranted a baseline sanction of a three year suspension under the commingling and conversion guidelines set forth in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, it found the significant mitigating factors justified a deviation from this sanction.
  • In re Pinkston 728 So. 2d 381 La. 1998
    Relying on Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, the committee concluded the baseline sanction for respondent’s conduct was disbarment.
  • Dual Drilling Co. v. MILLS EQUIPMENT, INC. 721 So. 2d 853 La. 1998
  • In re Williams 714 So. 2d 699 La. 1998
    Relying on Standard 4.11 of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, 5 as well as this court’s opinion in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, 6 the board concluded disbarment was the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct.
  • In Re Kelly 713 So. 2d 458 La. 1998
  • In re White 706 So. 2d 964 La. 1998
    the board concluded disbarment was the baseline sanction.
  • Dual Drilling Co. v. MILLS EQUIPMENT INVS., INC. 705 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    In Louisiana State Bar Assn. v. Hinrichs, *1257 Justice Dennis, a noted defender of Louisiana's civilian tradition, recognized that since the 1800's conversion in Louisiana has been limited to those major interferences with a chattel, or with a plaintiff's rights in it, which are serious and important, and in determining the seriousness of the interferen
  • In re Gardner 701 So. 2d 1342 La. 1997
    The board noted that the baseline sanction under Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, for a pattern of conversion is a three year suspension.
  • Aymond v. STATE, DEPT. OF REVENUE & TAX. 672 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    W. Prosser & W. Keeton, Torts, § 15 at 98-99 (5th ed. 1984).
  • In re Muhammad 655 So. 2d 325 La. 1995
    While noting that disbarment is the baseline sanction for such conduct, and the Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions ¶ 4.11 and ¶ 5.11 (1986), the Hearing Committee nevertheless recommended a three-year ^suspension because of the mitigating factors outlined above.
  • In re Aime 653 So. 2d 1173 La. 1995
    State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs
  • In re Irby 631 So. 2d 1154 La. 1994
    We also agree that under ABA Standard 4.1 and Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, disbarment is the appropriate sanction given the conceded fact that respondent knowingly converted client funds, caused actual injury to the client and has to this date failed to make restitution.
  • In re Farver 629 So. 2d 379 La. 1993
    After a review of the entire record by the Disciplinary Board of the Louisiana State Bar Association, the Board concluded: “Under both the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, and the guidelines established in LSBA vs. Hinrichs, the pattern of misconduct exhibited by Respondent involving gross neglect, theft and conversion of funds, clearly warrants the imposition of severe discipline.” This Court considering the record in this cause, and it having shown that the Res
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Chatelain 573 So. 2d 470 La. 1991
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Thierry 573 So. 2d 1099 La. 1991
    disbarment is appropriate when there is a violation of DR 9-102 involving client injury, fraudulent acts, and tardy restitution.
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Guidry 571 So. 2d 161 La. 1990
    we set forth categories of discipline for commingling and conversion cases.
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Keys 567 So. 2d 588 La. 1990
    which set out guidelines for deciding the penalty in cases involving misuse of clients' funds.
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Gold 563 So. 2d 855 La. 1990
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Kilgarlin 561 So. 2d 1377 La. 1990
    The Committee on Professional Responsibility of the Louisiana State Bar Association recommended disbarment, citing The American Bar Association’s Standards For Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1986) 5 and Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Jones 555 So. 2d 1375 La. 1990
    indicate at least a suspension of three years.
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Riley 555 So. 2d 984 La. 1990
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Amberg 553 So. 2d 448 La. 1989
    Our sanction choice of a and in other cases cited therein.
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Lindsay 553 So. 2d 807 La. 1989
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Dumaine 550 So. 2d 1197 La. 1989
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Perez 550 So. 2d 188 La. 1989
    v. Hinrichs, we set out guidelines for imposing disciplinary sanctions against attorneys in cases involving the commingling and conversion of client's funds.
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Williams 549 So. 2d 275 La. 1989
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Chatelain 545 So. 2d 1000 La. 1989
    enunciates guidelines for determining appropriate disciplinary sanctions in cases involving an attorney’s conversion of a client’s money.
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Young 545 So. 2d 1018 La. 1989
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Pasquier 545 So. 2d 1014 La. 1989
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Longenecker 538 So. 2d 156 La. 1989
    this court set forth general guidelines for imposing discipline in cases involving conversion of client's funds.
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Boddie 534 So. 2d 944 La. 1988
    DR 9-102, La.Code of Professional Responsibility
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Young 534 So. 2d 948 La. 1988
    5 *950 this court established guidelines for imposing penalties in cases involving conversion of clients’ funds.
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Alker 530 So. 2d 1138 La. 1988
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Hayling 529 So. 2d 1 La. 1988
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Marinello 523 So. 2d 838 La. 1988
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Scariano 523 So. 2d 834 La. 1988
  • LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASS'N v. Thierry 520 So. 2d 410 La. 1988
    this court set forth guidelines for imposing sanctions in cases of commingling and conversion of client's funds in violation of DR 9-102(A).
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. McKee 518 So. 2d 480 La. 1988
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Krasnoff 515 So. 2d 780 La. 1987
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Chatelain 513 So. 2d 1178 La. 1987
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Reis 513 So. 2d 1173 La. 1987