IN RE: GRETA L. WILSON
disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against
respondent, Greta L. Wilson, an attorney licensed to practice
law in Louisiana but currently inactive.
2013, respondent filed suit on behalf of Lawrence Gates, Jr.,
without his consent or authorization, regarding funds
recovered from the sale of property located in New Orleans.
After the suit was filed, respondent received a check in the
amount of $20, 141. On May 21, 2013, respondent affixed Mr.
Gates' signature to the check and deposited it into her
client trust account. Upon learning of this, Mr. Gates
retained attorney Herbert A. Cade. In January 2014, Mr. Cade
sent respondent a demand letter requesting that he issue a
cashier's check made payable to Mr. Gates in the
aforementioned amount. Respondent complied with this request
in February 2014. Prior to that time, however, Mr. Gates had
received no funds from respondent.
January 2014, Mr. Cade filed a disciplinary complaint against
respondent regarding these events. In response to the
complaint, respondent indicated that Mr. Gates had closed his
file in the matter because he was satisfied with her response
and compliance with his demand. In a supplementary response
to the complaint, respondent described a personal illness and
her father's terminal illness, both of which she claimed
contributed to the delay in forwarding the funds to Mr.
August 2014, respondent gave a sworn statement to the ODC in
which she acknowledged receiving the funds from the court
registry and depositing the funds in her trust account.
Respondent claimed that she was entitled to one-third of the
$20, 141 ($6, 713.67). However, the funds in her account
dipped below $13, 427.34 on numerous occasions between the
date of deposit and the date of her issuance of the
cashier's check to Mr. Gates. Respondent was unable to
provide a copy of her contract with Mr. Gates and the trust
account records reflect that the refund did not come from her
alleged respondent's misconduct violated the following
provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.15
(safekeeping property of clients or third persons), 1.16
(obligations upon termination of the representation), 3.3
(false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal),
8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct),
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).
January 8, 2014, respondent filed an ex parte motion
for order to enroll as counsel of record in the matter of
New Orleans Redevelopment Authority v. Harry Lee
Pittman, et al., No. 2009-2899, Div. "M, "
Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans. In the pleading,
respondent indicated that she was retained as counsel by Mr.
Pittman for the sole purpose of withdrawing funds deposited
in connection with the matter. This was followed by an ex
parte motion for order to withdraw funds from the
registry of the court. In the pleading, respondent again
identified herself as counsel for Mr. Pittman.
connection with the filings, the court ordered disbursement
of a check in the amount of $32, 959.14 (together with
interest) payable to Mr. Pittman and respondent. On February
18, 2014, the clerk issued a check in the amount of $33,
220.81 payable to Mr. Pittman and respondent. On March 11,
2014, the check was negotiated, bearing the purported
endorsements of Mr. Pittman and respondent.
reality, Mr. Pittman had never hired or even met respondent.
Due to physical limitations, which existed at the time of the
issuance of the check, Mr. Pittman would not have been
physically able to sign his name to endorse the check. Upon
learning of respondent's actions, Mr. Pittman enlisted
the assistance of attorney Edwin R. Murray, who attempted to
obtain information from respondent relative to this matter.
provided Mr. Murray with a copy of a contract for services
executed by Zealous Pittman, the brother of Mr. Pittman. The
contract identifies Zealous as having power of attorney over
Mr. Pittman; however, no such power of attorney existed or
was in effect at that time. No proceeds from the monies
obtained by ...