IN RE: GRETA L. WILSON
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against
respondent, Greta L. Wilson, a disbarred attorney.
we address the current charges, we find it helpful to review
respondent's prior disciplinary history. Respondent was
admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana in 1989. In
2017, the court disbarred respondent, who, without having the
authority or consent to do so, filed suit and enrolled as
counsel in another suit for the purpose of obtaining funds,
and then converted those funds to her own use. In re:
Wilson, 17-0622 (La. 6/5/17), 221 So.3d 40
this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the
misconduct at issue in the instant proceeding.
of background, Kim Richardson retained respondent to
represent him in a contract dispute with the State of
Louisiana Hazard Mitigation Grant Program ("HMGP")
and a grant recipient homeowner. Essentially, respondent was
to help Mr. Richardson collect funds due to him for
construction work that he had completed on a recipient's
home. On June 21, 2012, Mr. Richardson paid respondent a $5,
000 deposit and signed an attorney-client contract calling
for the deposit to be drawn upon at the rate of $150 per
Mr. Richardson attempted to contact respondent, to no avail.
Mr. Richardson was eventually able to reach respondent's
assistant, who provided him with a copy of his file. The file
included a copy of the attorney-client contract, a copy of a
letter purportedly sent by respondent to the HMGP requesting
a copy of records, two internal memorandums from
respondent's assistant, and one purported billing
statement for 2.58 hours of work. Respondent failed to
perform any substantial work in the matter and failed to
refund any of the $5, 000 payment.
April 2015, the ODC received a complaint filed by Mr.
Richardson against respondent. A copy of the complaint was
forwarded to respondent via certified mail and delivered to
her primary address, but she failed to respond to the
August 2017, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent,
alleging that her conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3 (a lawyer
shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a
client), 1.16 (obligations upon termination of the
representation), 3.2 (failure to make reasonable efforts to
expedite litigation), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the
ODC in its investigation), 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct), and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).
failed to answer the formal charges. Accordingly, the factual
allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven
by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). No formal hearing was held, but
the parties were given an opportunity to file with the
hearing committee written arguments and documentary evidence
on the issue of sanctions. Respondent filed nothing for the
hearing committee's consideration.