In re: Carl v. Williams – Establishing One-Year Suspension for Knowing Conversion of Client Funds

Introduction

In In re: Carl v. Williams, 2025-B-0200 (La. 4/23/25), the Supreme Court of Louisiana addressed disciplinary charges against Carl V. Williams, an attorney admitted to practice in 1987. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) alleged that Williams failed to disburse succession proceeds to an heir, held those funds in his trust account for years, then transferred them to his personal account. The Court reviewed his extensive prior disciplinary history, the formal charges—and deemed admissions—and imposed a suspension of one year and one day. This decision clarifies the baseline sanction for knowing conversion of client funds and the proof required for a Rule 8.1(c) “failure to cooperate” violation.

Summary of the Judgment

1. The ODC filed formal charges under Rules 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.15(a)/(d) (safekeeping/remittance), 8.1(c) (cooperation) and 8.4(c) (dishonesty). 2. Williams failed to answer; the allegations were deemed admitted. 3. A hearing committee found clear and convincing proof of all violations except 8.1(c). 4. Aggravating factors: prior offenses, dishonest motive, substantial experience. 5. Mitigating factors: procedural delay, remoteness of some prior sanctions. 6. The Court independently reviewed the record, rejected the Rule 8.1(c) violation, and adopted a one-year-and-one-day suspension, requiring petition for reinstatement and assessment of costs.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• In re: Williams, 98-0773 (La. 4/24/98), 709 So. 2d 211 – One-year-and-one-day suspension (three months actual) for neglect, communication failures, commingling, conversion.
• In re: Williams, 10-2759 (La. 5/10/11), 62 So. 3d 751 – One-year-and-one-day suspension for conversion and dishonesty.
• In re: Williams, 11-1727 (La. 8/31/11), 69 So. 3d 414 – Ninety-day suspension for practicing while suspended.
• In re: Donnan, 01-3058 (La. 1/10/03), 838 So. 2d 715 – Clarified that deemed admissions of facts do not automatically prove legal conclusions absent clear link.
• In re: Banks, 09-1212 (La. 10/2/09), 18 So. 3d 57 – Standard of review in disciplinary matters: clear and convincing evidence required.
• In re: Dumas, 15-1570 (La. 2/4/16), 187 So. 3d 428 – Two-year suspension where attorney failed to timely disburse succession funds and mismanaged trust account extensively.

Legal Reasoning

The Court reaffirmed that attorney disciplinary proceedings serve to protect the public, preserve professional integrity, and deter misconduct. Under Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So. 2d 1173 (La. 1987), sanctions depend on the seriousness of the offense plus aggravating and mitigating factors.

• Deemed Admissions: Williams’s failure to answer meant all factual allegations were admitted. However, per Donnan, the Court examined whether those facts proved each rule violation. It held that the admitted facts clearly supported violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(a)/(d) and 8.4(c), but not Rule 8.1(c), because Williams did appear for his sworn statement and ultimately repaid the client.

• Baseline Sanction: ABA Standards prescribe suspension where an attorney knowingly converts client funds and causes actual harm. The hearing committee and Court selected suspension as the baseline.

• Aggravation & Mitigation: The Court found three aggravators—prior offenses, selfish motive, and professional experience—and two mitigators—delay in proceedings and remoteness of early disciplinary history. Balancing these, the one-year-and-one-day term matched comparable cases, particularly Dumas, while recognizing less extensive account mismanagement here.

Impact

• This decision re-endorses the principle that any knowing conversion of client or third-party funds triggers at least a one-year suspension.

• It underscores that restitution after long delay does not eliminate the need for significant discipline.

• It refines the proof required for Rule 8.1(c) violations—mere initial delay in cooperation is insufficient without clear and convincing evidence of persistent non-cooperation.

• Future applicants for reinstatement will face heightened scrutiny if they have a lengthy disciplinary history of similar misconduct.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Client Trust Account: A segregated bank account where attorneys hold client or third-party funds until properly disbursed.
• Commingling vs. Conversion: Commingling is mixing client funds with personal funds; conversion is using client funds for one’s own purposes.
• Deemed Admissions: When an attorney fails to respond to formal charges, all alleged facts are treated as proven without further proof.
• Rule 8.1(c) “Failure to Cooperate”: Requires clear and convincing proof that an attorney unreasonably refused or obstructed disciplinary investigation—sporadic or corrective cooperation may defeat this charge.
• Baseline Sanction: Under ABA Standards, the starting point for sanctioning a type of misconduct before considering aggravation and mitigation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Louisiana’s decision in In re: Carl v. Williams reaffirms that knowing misappropriation of client funds warrants a significant suspension—here, one year and one day—even where funds are ultimately returned. It clarifies that disciplinary charges deemed admitted can establish factual violations, but legal conclusions (e.g., non-cooperation) still require clear and convincing evidence. By aligning the sanction with prior jurisprudence and refining proof standards for Rule 8.1(c), the Court strengthens the integrity of the bar’s self-regulation and provides a roadmap for future disciplinary adjudications.