Opinion
No.2023-B-00935
12-05-2023
IN RE: Jim S. HALL
Findings and Recommendations (Formal Charges).
1Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
PER CURIAM
1This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Jim S. Hall, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana.
UNDERLYING FACTS
Count I
In August 2019, respondent hired TFX Web Net, LLC ("TFX") to design and create an advertising campaign for his law firm. TFX is owned by Blair Touchard. On September 12, 2019, respondent authorized his law firm staff to send a letter under his signature which stated, in pertinent part, "This letter serves as notification that Jim S. Hall & Associates, LLC authorizes Blair Touchard of TFX web/net dba BLARE of Metairie, LA to plan and place media on our behalf. Jim S. Hall & Associates, LLC will be responsible for the payment of any approved programs that may be contracted on our behalf by Blair Touchard of TFX web/net dba BLARE."
On October 2, 2019, respondent’s law firm issued a $3,360 check to TFX as payment for services rendered. Later in October, TFX sought payment from the law firm for additional services rendered, but respondent refused to pay the invoice and terminated his firm’s relationship with TFX. As a resulti TFX filed suit against respondent and his law firm in the 22nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany.
2In May 2020, respondent filed an exception of improper venue in the litigation. In the accompanying memorandum in support of the exception, respondent stated that he and his law firm "were completely unaware of any involvement by plaintiff TFX Web Net LLC as their only dealings in this matter were with Blair Touchard D/B/A ‘Blare.’ " Likewise, respondent submitted an affidavit in which he attested that he and his law firm "were entirely unaware of the existence of plaintiff, TFX Web, LLC [sic]." These representations by respondent were false. In August 2020, Mr. Touchard filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC.
On June 3, 2021, the ODC took respondent’s sworn statement. During his statement, respondent admitted that, contrary to his representations in the memorandum and the affidavit, he knew at the time he signed and filed these pleadings that his law firm previously had dealings with, and was aware of the existence of, TFX. At the conclusion of the sworn statement, the ODC asked respondent whether he intended to correct the false representations in the memorandum and the affidavit. Respondent agreed that he would do so and provide a copy of the revised pleadings to the ODC. On June 10, 2021, respondent sent the following correspondence to the ODC:
Enclosed please find a Second Supplemental and Amended Memorandum in Support of Exception of Improper Venue along with an attached revised Affidavit of Support of the Memorandum that I will be filing into the court record shortly. I believe the Second Supplemental Memorandum covers what we discussed, however if it does not, please let me know.
On April 7, 2022, the ODC inquired whether respondent had filed the corrected pleadings into the court record. On April 8, 2022, ten months after his sworn statement, respondent made the filing.
3The ODC alleges that respondent’s conduct in Count I violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 3.3(a)(1) (a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer), 3.3(a)(3) (a lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
Count II
In October 2020, Richard Lemmler, the Louisiana State Bar Association’s ("LSBA") Ethics Counsel, provided the ODC with a video file for a television advertisement by respondent. Respondent did not submit the advertisement for review by the LSBA prior to or concurrently with the publication of the advertisement, and it was not filed with the LSBA as a "late filing." Furthermore, the advertisement does not identify the city or town of respondent’s principal office location, and it includes a portrayal of clients and includes a scene depicting an accident, neither of which contains the required disclaimers. Finally, the advertisement includes a voiceover by an announcer shouting "Call Hall," but does not include a disclaimer that the speaker or announcer has been paid. After receiving notice of the ODC’s inquiry, respondent pulled the advertisement in question.
The ODC alleges that respondent’s conduct in Count II violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 7.2(a)(2) (all advertisements shall disclose, by city or town, one or more bona fide office location(s) of the lawyer(s) who will actually perform the services advertised), 7.2(c)(1)(H) (an advertisement shall not contain a paid testimonial or endorsement, unless the fact of payment is disclosed), 7.2(c)(1)(I) (an advertisement shall not include a portrayal of 4a client by a non-client without disclaimer of such, or the depiction of any events or scenes, other than still pictures, photographs or other static images, that are not actual or authentic without disclaimer of such), and 7.7(c) (evaluation of advertisements by the LSBA Rules of Professional Conduct Committee required prior to or concurrently with the lawyer’s first dissemination of the advertisement).
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In July 2022, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent as set forth above. In his answer, respondent denied any misconduct in Count I. As to Count II, respondent admitted that he violated Rules 7.2(a)(2), Rule 7.2(c)(1)(I), and Rule 7.7(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, but he denied that he violated Rule 7.2(c)(1)(H).
In light of respondent’s answer, the matter proceeded to a formal hearing on the merits.
Formal Hearing
The hearing committee conducted the hearing on January 23, 2023. The ODC called Mr. Touchard to testify before the committee. Respondent testified on his own behalf and on cross-examination by the ODC. He also called three character witnesses.
Hearing Committee Report
After considering the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the hearing committee made the following factual findings:
Count I: Respondent and Mr. Touchard reached an oral agreement whereby Mr. Touchard would provide services to respondent’s law firm. Mr. Touchard requested that a member of respondent’s staff issue a letter stating that the law firm 5was authorizing "Blair Touchard of TFX web/net dba BLARE of Metairie, LA" to plan and place media on behalf of the law firm. The law firm staff member issued the letter under respondent’s signature, but respondent did not review the letter. The law firm also issued a check to TFX for the payment of Mr. Touchard’s first invoice.