IN RE: Henry B. KING (2023)

Joint petition for consent discipline accepted. See per curiam.

Respondent mishandled his client trust account, resulting in the commingling and conversion of funds, and failed to properly withdraw from a representation. Prior to 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 Henry B. King, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 8426, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day, with all but ninety days deferred. 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.

Given respondent's extensive record and the similar nature of past discipline, I suggest all but six months should be deferred. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent with respect to the sanction imposed.

This matter involves accounting and procedural errors, including a lack of proper record-keeping, misuse of respondent's trust account, failure to disburse fees as earned, and conversion of client funds. Respondent also hired a certified public accountant to review his accounts, who confirmed that the account was underfunded by $18,671.24.

The parties stipulated that the following aggravating factors are present: a prior disciplinary record,¹ a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted in 1984).

FOOTNOTES

1.   Respondent's prior discipline consists of three formal private reprimands in the late 1980s, a fully deferred six-month suspension with probation in 1996, and a public reprimand in 2005. Two of the private reprimands were due to respondent's failure to return client funds. The suspension resulted from respondent's neglect of a legal matter and his failure to refund unearned fees. In re: King, 96-0603 (La. 9/20/96), 679 So.2d 902. The public reprimand, imposed by consent, resulted from respondent's failure to promptly remit funds to a third-party medical provider and his failure to supervise a non-lawyer assistant. In re: King, 04-3018 (La. 2/4/05), 893 So.2d 868.

Weimer, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.