Petition for permanent resignation from the practice of law in lieu of discipline granted. See order.
ORDER
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) is conducting an investigation into allegations that respondent committed serious attorney misconduct, the most significant of which involves the conversion of client funds. Respondent now seeks to permanently resign from the practice of law in lieu of discipline. The ODC has concurred in respondents petition.
Having considered the Petition for Permanent Resignation from the Practice of Law filed by Stephen A. Jefferson, Louisiana Bar Roll number 7250, and the concurrence thereto filed by the ODC,
IT IS ORDERED that the request of Stephen A. Jefferson for permanent resignation in lieu of discipline be and is hereby granted, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 20.1 and Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Stephen A. Jefferson shall be permanently prohibited from practicing law in Louisiana or in any other jurisdiction in which he is admitted to the practice of law; shall be permanently prohibited from seeking readmission to the practice of law in this state or in any other jurisdiction in which he is admitted; and shall be permanently prohibited from seeking admission to the practice of law in any jurisdiction.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this _ day of _, 2021.
FOR THE COURT:
/s/ _
JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
I agree with the per curiam order granting respondents request for permanent resignation. I write separately to highlight that while this action serves the purpose of attorney disciplinary proceedings – i.e., to protect the public, maintain high standards of conduct, preserve the integrity of the profession, and deter future misconduct, see Louisiana State Bar Assn v. Reis, 513 So. 2d 1173 (La. 1987) – it unfortunately does not provide relief to respondents client from whom respondent allegedly converted a staggering $250,000 of settlement funds. As I have previously noted, attorney disciplinary proceedings are distinct from a civil tort action for conversion or a prosecution action for theft, and the relief to the client provided herein is unavoidably limited. See In re Whalen, 2020-00869 (La. 9/29/20), 301 So. 3d 1170, 1176 (Crichton, J., dissenting); In re: Kelly, 20-118 (La. 6/3/20), 298 So. 3d 161 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring); In re: Dangerfield, 20-0116 (La. 5/14/20), 296 So. 3d 595 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring).
I write separately to emphasize that this courts action does not, unfortunately, constitute a money judgment in favor of the victim. I share the view previously expressed by my colleagues that the victims of conversion or theft should be advised by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the purpose of attorney disciplinary proceedings, which are distinct and apart from a civil tort action for conversion or criminal prosecution for theft. See In re: Kelly, 20-00118 (La. 6/3/20), 298 So.3d 161 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring); In re: Dangerfield, 20-0116 (La. 5/14/20), 296 So. 3d 595 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring); In re: Breeden, 20-0315 (La. 4/27/20), 295 So. 3d 391 (Crain, J., concurring). In addition to safeguarding the public, disciplinary proceedings are intended to maintain high standards of conduct by attorneys, preserve the integrity of the profession, and discourage future misconduct. In re: Whalen, 20-00869 (La. 9/29/20), 301 So.3d 1170, 1174. While respondent will no longer be allowed to practice law, this will not make the victim whole. Under such circumstances, victims should be advised to seek counsel to address prescriptive limitations of any legal rights which they may have.
Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
McCallum, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.