IN RE: William Chase GORE (2021)

Joint petition for consent discipline accepted. See per curiam.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

Respondent neglected a client's legal matter, failed to communicate with his client, misled opposing counsel regarding the status of the matter, and concealed his misconduct from his client and his supervising attorney. Following the filing of formal charges, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that William Chase Gore, Louisiana Bar Roll number 37700, be suspended from the practice of law for eighteen months, with six months deferred. This suspension shall be retroactive to September 8, 2020, the date of respondent's interim suspension. Following the active portion of the suspension, respondent shall be placed on supervised probation for two years, subject to the conditions set forth in the Petition for Consent Discipline. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent, the probation monitor, and the ODC execute a formal probation plan. Any failure of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, or any misconduct during the probationary period, may be grounds for making the deferred portion of the suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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.

See Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.1.

As the facts of this case make readily apparent, one does not have to excuse the behavior of respondent to recognize that, faced with an overwhelming caseload, proliferating deadlines, and personal tragedy, he found himself in an apparently intractable position. Rather than reaching out for assistance in order to extricate himself, respondent relied on his own machinations to only delay the inevitable. Observers might question why respondent did not seek advice from his supervising attorney or others within the firm. However, an exit readily apparent to the onlooker is not always easily seen by the person who is actually meandering in the maze.

No doubt, respondent's reluctance to solicit help from within the firm was fueled by equal parts inexperience, embarrassment, and fear of repercussion. Perhaps respondent erroneously perceived seeking internal assistance as a twofold admission of failure; his neglect of duties and the decision of the firm to employ him. Whatever his thought processes, respondent's actions created a disquieting situation for not only himself, but also his firm and most importantly, his clients.

That said, respondent received no pecuniary gain from his actions. Indeed, in addition to the restitution he has already made, he has suffered some loss of respect and reputation. He has no prior disciplinary record and has made a good faith effort to rectify the consequences of his misconduct. He has been cooperative in the disciplinary process, confessed his wrongdoing, and exhibits sincere remorse.

The disciplinary process, in which the respondent finds himself, is designed, in part, to be remedial and redemptive. The conditions of probation, which are a part of the petition for consent discipline, will further help him to address his shortcomings. Respondent has been advised of other resources available to assist him.

Such after the fact measures can be very efficacious, but they are never preferable to preventive measures. Among other avenues available to a struggling attorney, the Louisiana State Bar Association offers much aid through its Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP). See La. R.S. 37:221. Too often such programs are seen as curative only, rather than preventive.

JLAP exists to offer assistance to judges and lawyers in need at the initial stages of a problem, as well as at the conclusion. As a profession, we owe it to ourselves, as well as neophyte lawyers and the public, to encourage the enlistment of assistance before a situation develops into a problem that results in harm to clients and discipline to the attorney.

Crain, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons. McCallum, J., concurs and assigns reasons.