IN RE: MICHAEL J. RILEY, SR.
No. 94-B-2719
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
94-2719 (La. 01/13/95);
648 So. 2d 865;
1995 La. LEXIS 148
January 13, 1995, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY:
[**1] IN RE: Disciplinary Bd.La.St. Bar; - Other(s); Applying for Petition of
Disciplinary Board Petition for Reinstatement.
JUDGES: Catherine D. Kimball, Pascal F. Calogero, Jr., Walter F. Marcus, Jr., James L.
Dennis, Jack Crozier Watson, Harry T. Lemmon, Bernette Joshua Johnson
OPINION:
[*865] Denied. See
per curiam.
VICTORY, J. not on panel.
PER CURIAM *
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Victory, J., not on panel. Rule IV, Part 2,
§ 3.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This matter involves an application for re-instatement filed by a
disbarred attorney. For the reasons which follow, petitioner's application is denied.
FACTS
Petitioner, Michael J. Riley, was
suspended for three years by order of this Court on January 12, 1987.
LSBA v. Riley, 500 So.2d 753 (La. 1987). The
misconduct which gave rise to petitioner's
suspension involved his commingling and conversion of client funds and failure to repay
money owed to United States Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance (USF&G) on behalf of one of his clients. In addition to imposition of the
suspension, this Court ordered
[**2] that petitioner provide proof of full
restitution of the amounts owed as
a condition of
reinstatement.
Three years after the
suspension, petitioner was
disbarred by order of this court dated
[*866] January 19, 1990.
LSBA v. Riley, 555 So.2d 984 (La. 1990). The
misconduct giving rise to his disbarment involved a series of offenses which took place
more or less concurrently with the offenses for which petitioner was
suspended in 1987 and involved seven of petitioner's clients and two non-client third
parties. Petitioner was
disbarred for neglecting legal matters entrusted to him, failing to cooperate with the
investigation of the Committee on Professional Responsibility of the Louisiana
State Bar Association, issuing a worthless check to an expert witness,
improperly taking money from clients, filing suit on behalf of clients and
later abandoning those suits and causing their dismissal. In the order
disbarring petitioner, this Court noted that if he should ever apply for
readmission, the matter of
restitution would be an appropriate
subject of inquiry by the committee at that time.
Id. at 988.
Petitioner's petition for
readmission
[**3] in the case
sub judice was filed on February 16, 1994.
Disciplinary Counsel opposed the petition, and a hearing was held before a hearing
committee on June 28, 1994 in New Orleans. The hearing committee's report,
dated August 9, 1994, and the
disciplinary board's report, dated November 4, 1994, both recommend that petitioner's
application for
reinstatement be denied.
ANALYSIS
Section 24(E) of Louisiana Supreme Court Rule 19 sets forth the applicable
criteria for
reinstatement and
readmission. A lawyer seeking
reinstatement or
readmission must satisfy each criteria in that rule or present a good and sufficient
reason why the lawyer should nevertheless be
reinstated or readmitted. Rule 19,
§ 24(E)(1) requires that
a lawyer cannot be
reinstated unless he has fully complied with the terms and conditions of all prior
disciplinary orders unless those orders have been abated.
The record in this case indicates that petitioner has failed to make a good
faith effort at
restitution to all of the victims of the
misconduct for which he was
suspended in 1987. Because this failure is sufficient under Rule 19 to disqualify
petitioner from being
reinstated at this time, we need not address
[**4] the issue of whether petitioner has satisfied Rule 19's other requirements.
Accordingly, upon review of the record of the
disciplinary board's findings and recommendations, and considering the transcript, record,
and briefs, it is the decision of this Court that Michael J. Riley's petition
for
readmission be denied at this time for failure to comply with this Court's previous order
of January 12, 1987. Petitioner may re-apply once he has satisfied all of Rule
19's criteria for
reinstatement and
readmission.
