From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Butler

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Oct 25, 1996
679 So. 2d 383 (La. 1996)

Opinion

No. 96-B-1235

September 13, 1996 Rehearing denied October 25, 1996

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS


Respondent, Perrin Butler, was formally charged with engaging in a conflict of interest, breaching client confidentiality, engaging in improper ex parte communication with a judge, engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, filing several meritless claims, and communicating with represented parties in violation of Rules 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 3.1, 3.5, 4.2, 8.4 (a), 8.4 (d), and 8.4 (e) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The facts developed at the hearing indicated that Respondent represented Janet Capaci Reeder in her divorce proceeding against Dr. William Reeder in violation of Rule 1.7 and filed several meritless claims against Dr. William Reeder and Mary Reeder in violation of Rule 3.1, Rule 8.4 (a) and 8.4 (d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Both the hearing committee and the disciplinary board recommended that respondent be suspended for six months and be required to pay all expenses of the disciplinary proceeding.

Upon review of the record of the disciplinary board's findings and recommendations, and considering the transcript, record, briefs and oral argument, it is the decision of the court that the disciplinary board's recommendations be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ordered that Perrin Butler be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months from the finality of this decision. All costs of this proceeding are assessed to respondent.

SUSPENSION ORDERED.

Calogero, C.J., not on panel.


Summaries of

In re Butler

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Oct 25, 1996
679 So. 2d 383 (La. 1996)
Case details for

In re Butler

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: PERRIN BUTLER

Court:Supreme Court of Louisiana

Date published: Oct 25, 1996

Citations

679 So. 2d 383 (La. 1996)

Citing Cases

In re Shar

In determining an appropriate sanction, the committee utilized the cases cited by the ODC in its prehearing…

In re Dubarry

Standard 7.1 provides "[d]isbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that…