NEW ORLEANS (Louisiana Record) — Longtime Alexandria attorney George A. Flournoy faces possible suspension following a sharply split Sept. 17 Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board (LADB) recommendation to the Louisiana Supreme Court over allegations in two client matters.
In its 26-page recommendation, the majority of the LADB recommended Flournoy be suspended for one year, with all but 30 days deferred and that he be ordered to pay all costs and expenses.
LADB board members Pamela W. Carter, Brian D. Landry, Sheila E. O'Leary, Dominick Scandurro Jr. and Melissa L. Theriot voted with the board's majority recommendation. Members Danna E. Schwab, Linda G. Bizzarro and Charles H. Williamson dissented with reasons.
The dissenting members said in their dissents they would have upheld a hearing committee's recommendation about a year ago that Flournoy be suspended for 18 months, with all but 60 days deferred, followed by two years' conditional probation. Bizzarro, in her dissent, referred to Flournoy's "multiple offenses and submission of a false statement during the disciplinary process."
Flournoy was admitted to the bar in Louisiana on Oct. 2, 1974, according to his profile at the Louisiana State Bar Association's website. Flournoy had no prior discipline before the state bar, according to the LADB's recommendation.
Allegations against Flournoy stem from three client matters, according to the LADB's recommendation.
In one matter, Flournoy allegedly violated professional conduct rules regarding conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and failing to reasonably ensure his non-lawyer assistant's conduct was compatible with the professional obligation of the lawyer.
In a second matter, Flournoy allegedly violated professional conduct rules regarding charging and collecting an unreasonable fee.
Flournoy also faced charges in a third client matter but those charges did not stand. In that situation the office of disciplinary counsel withdrew allegations regarding diligence and communication. The hearing committee subsequently found that the office of disciplinary counsel failed to prove Flournoy had violated other professional conduct rules in the third matter. Those other rules included continuing to take steps in the prosecution of his clients' claims, disobeying a tribunal and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.