IN RE: GRAVES, WHITLEY R.
2001-0922 (La.05/11/0920);
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 01-B-0922
IN RE: WHITLEY R. GRAVES
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
PER CURIAM *
This disciplinary proceeding arises from a joint petition for
consent discipline filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) and
respondent, Whitley R. Graves, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State
of Louisiana.
UNDERLYING FACTS
Respondent, an assistant district attorney for the Parish of
Bossier, represented the State of Louisiana in a capital case pending before
this court, State v. Casey, 99-KA-0023. Supreme Court Rule XXVIII, § 4
requires the district attorney’s office to file a Sentence Review Memorandum in
all capital cases within thirty days from the time the defense’s brief is filed
in this court. Respondent did not file a Sentence Review Memorandum by this
deadline, which was April 29, 1999.
On June 3, 1999, this court sent a demand for brief and
Sentence Review Memorandum to the district attorney’s office. Respondent, on
behalf of the State, filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief and
Sentence Review Memorandum. On June 14, 1999, this court granted respondent an
additional sixty days to file a brief and Sentence Review Memorandum.
Respondent eventually filed a brief in this matter on October
18, 1999, but did not file a Sentence Review Memorandum. On November 29, 1999,
this court personally informed respondent before beginning oral arguments in the
matter that he was required to file a Sentence Review Memorandum. Respondent
told this court he had a copy of the memorandum with him and would check with
the clerk’s office after arguments to take care of the matter.
After one month, respondent had still not filed a Sentence
Review Memorandum. Accordingly, on December 28, 1999, this court ordered
respondent to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to
file the Sentence Review Memorandum in a timely manner.
Respondent appeared before this court on January 18, 2000,
claiming that he had not received any notice that he was required to file a
Sentence Review Memorandum, despite the order dated June 14, 1999 from this
court and despite being personally informed by the court before oral arguments
on November 29, 1999 of his obligations under Rule XXVIII. Respondent blamed his
failure to file the Sentence Review Memorandum on his poor health, absences and
incompetent staff. The Sentence Review Memorandum was finally filed in this
court on January 18, 2000.
On February 11, 2000, this court issued an order holding
respondent in contempt of court. State v. Casey, 99-0023 (La. 2/11/00),
775 So. 2d 1043. After reviewing the facts, we stated:
Based upon the foregoing, we hold that Whitley Graves willfully disobeyed a lawful order of this court by failing to file the required Sentence Review Memorandum in a timely manner and, thus, hold him in contempt. Accordingly, we fine him $250.00 and a copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Consent Discipline
Pursuant to our order, the ODC instituted an investigation
into the matter. Prior to the institution of formal charges, respondent and the
ODC entered into a petition for consent discipline. The parties stipulated to
the facts, as set forth in this court’s opinion in the contempt matter.
Respondent acknowledged his conduct was in violation of Rules 1.3
(neglect) and 8.4(d)
(engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the Rules
of Professional Conduct. As mitigating factors, the parties noted respondent’s
absence of a prior disciplinary record, full and free disclosure to the
disciplinary board and cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, character
and reputation, imposition of other penalties or sanctions, and remorse.
Considering these factors, the parties proposed respondent be suspended for a
period of less than one year, fully deferred, subject to a two-year period of
supervised probation.
Disciplinary Board Recommendation
The disciplinary board found respondent knowingly caused
injury to the integrity of the legal system because his actions resulted in a
nine-month delay in the resolution of the Casey matter and evidenced a lack of
respect for the court’s orders and instructions. The board further recognized
respondent misled this court by representing that he had a copy of the
memorandum with him and would file it after oral argument.
In determining an appropriate sanction, the board agreed that
there were numerous mitigating factors in this case which justified a downward
deviation from the baseline sanction of a suspension. Accordingly, the board
recommended adoption of the proposed discipline of a nine-month suspension,
totally deferred, subject to a two-year period of supervised probation. One
board member dissented, concluding a two-month period of actual suspension was
warranted under the facts.
DISCUSSION
Although this matter arises from a petition for consent
discipline, Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 20(B) provides that the extent of
discipline to be imposed is subject to review. In determining an appropriate
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).
The facts in this case are undisputed. Respondent failed to
comply with the orders of this court in connection with the filing of the
Sentence Review Memorandum. His conduct delayed resolution of the underlying
criminal proceeding, causing injury to the integrity of the legal process.
Respondent’s actions reveal a disturbing disregard for his professional
obligations and a lack of respect for the authority of this court which is
inappropriate for any member of the bar, especially an assistant district
attorney. The baseline sanction for this misconduct is clearly a suspension. See
Standard 5.22 of the American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer
Sanctions (“[s]uspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer in an official
or governmental position knowingly fails to follow proper procedures or rules,
and causes injury or potential injury to a party or to the integrity of the
legal process”).
Nonetheless, we recognize the existence of mitigating factors
which justify a deviation from the baseline sanction. Respondent has no prior
disciplinary record and has cooperated with disciplinary authorities, as
evidenced by his petition for consent discipline. Respondent’s conduct has been
the subject of other penalties, in the form of this court’s contempt judgment.
Finally, respondent has expressed sincere remorse for his actions by sending
letters of apology to a member of this court, as well as to the clerk of
court.
These mitigating factors justify imposition of a fully
deferred nine-month suspension, subject to a two-year period of probation.
Accordingly, we will accept the petition for consent discipline.
DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the
disciplinary board, and considering the record filed herein, it is ordered that
Whitley R. Graves be suspended from the practice of law in the State of
Louisiana for nine months. This suspension shall be fully deferred, subject to a
two-year period of supervised probation. 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.
* Philip C. Ciaccio, Justice Pro
Tempore, sitting in place of Associate Justice Harry T. Lemmon.
