In Re: Adam Granville Young

• Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana
• Decided: June 28, 2024
• Docket: 2024-B-00248
• Status: Published

Opinion

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #032

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 28th day of June, 2024 are as follows:

PER CURIAM:

2024-B-00248 IN RE: ADAM GRANVILLE YOUNG

SUSPENSION IMPOSED. SEE PER CURIAM.

Weimer, C.J., concurs in part, and dissents in part and assigns reasons. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 2024-B-0248

IN RE: ADAM GRANVILLE YOUNG

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of

Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Adam G. Young, an attorney

licensed to practice law in Louisiana.

UNDERLYING FACTS

Beginning in 2010, respondent represented his cousin, Donald Domingue, in

several legal matters. During the representation, Mr. Domingue offered respondent

office space and financial support to develop his law practice. Respondent accepted

the offer and financing from Mr. Domingue, and allegedly indicated that he would

commit a certain portion of the net profits from his law practice toward repaying Mr.

Domingue. On January 15, 2012, respondent executed a promissory note in favor

of Mr. Domingue in the amount of $500,000. On February 16, 2012, after Mr.

Domingue paid off respondent’s student loans, respondent executed a promissory

note in favor of Mr. Domingue in the amount of $151,675.61.1 Respondent did not

advise Mr. Domingue to seek independent legal counsel in these transactions.

1 On January 5, 2015, respondent executed another promissory note in favor of Mr. Domingue in the amount of $151,675.61. According to the recitations in the 2015 promissory note, it had come to the attention of respondent and Mr. Domingue that “the 2012 Note was silent as to the amount of interest that the debt would accrue,” and so respondent executed the 2015 promissory note “to revoke and replace the 2012 Note and to set forth retroactive interest bearing at the same rate as the student loan debt…” Respondent repaid approximately $18,000 to Mr. Domingue. Thereafter, he

was unable to make monthly payments on the debt, and Mr. Domingue demanded

all of the funds owed to him. Respondent terminated his representation of Mr.

Domingue in 2014, and various litigation ensued. Respondent filed a declaratory

judgment action against Mr. Domingue, seeking a determination of the amount he

owed Mr. Domingue. Mr. Domingue sued respondent for legal malpractice and on

the promissory notes. Respondent then filed a reconventional demand against Mr.

Domingue seeking damages for extortion and harassment as well as for unfair trade

practices. These lawsuits were later consolidated.

In 2020, respondent filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Mr.

Domingue filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy, to which respondent objected.

The issues between respondent and Mr. Domingue, including the state litigation,

were set to be tried in the bankruptcy case as an adversarial proceeding, but the

parties settled the matter in 2021. Under the settlement, respondent’s five-year

Chapter 11 Plan was confirmed and he agreed to an order allowing Mr. Domingue’s

claim of $541,910.41. Of this amount, $350,000 is nondischargeable, and any

proceeds paid to Mr. Domingue through the Chapter 11 Plan are first credited to the

dischargeable portion. As to any amount not subject to discharge and remaining

unpaid after termination of the Chapter 11 Plan, respondent is required to pay this

sum to Mr. Domingue in sixty e qual monthly installments beginning the first month

after termination of the Plan. To date, respondent has made no payments to Mr.

Domingue.2

2 Since 2021, respondent has made some payments to the IRS and the Louisiana Department of Revenue as priority creditors, but he has made no payments to his unsecured creditor, Mr. Domingue.

2 DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

In September 2019, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging

that he entered into an improper business transaction with a client, improperly shared

legal fees with a non-lawyer, and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the

administration of justice, in violation of Rules 1.8(a), 5.4(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d) of the

Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent answered the formal charges and denied

any misconduct.

In November 2019, respondent filed a motion to stay this proceeding pursuant

to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 18(G). 3 The ODC opposed the motion. The hearing

committee chair granted the motion to stay in December 2019. The stay remained

in effect until May 2021, when the matter was set for hearing pursuant to an

unopposed motion filed by the ODC.

Formal Hearing

The hearing committee conducted the formal hearing on October 20, 2021 and

December 21, 2022. Both parties introduced documentary evidence at the hearing.

The following witnesses testified: respondent, Mr. Domingue, Bradley Drell, Patrick

Cornelius Cotter, and Russell Kahn.

Hearing Committee Report

After considering the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the

hearing committee made findings of fact, including the following:

Respondent and Mr. Domingue are first cousins, once removed. They were

socially close. In 2009 and 2010, Mr. Domingue was a stockbroker and financial

advisor with an office in Abbeville; respondent, having been admitted to the bar in

3 Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 18(G) provides that a disciplinary matter may be stayed “because of substantial similarity to the material allegations of pending criminal or civil litigation…”

3 2005, was beginning his law practice in New Orleans. Mr. Domingue wanted to

help respondent grow his practice and offered to let him use an office in his business

suite in Abbeville as his law office. Respondent accepted this offer. Mr. Domingue

also provided respondent with cash advances and access to a credit card for the

operation of his law practice, and he paid off respondent’s student loans. Both Mr.

Domingue and respondent understood that these transactions were loans that

respondent would have to repay. 4

An attorney-client relationship between respondent and Mr. Domingue began

on December 13, 2010, when respondent agreed to represent Mr. Domingue in a

defamation action against Mr. Domingue’s ex-wife. By the time Mr. Domingue

became respondent’s client, Mr. Domingue had already begun to loan respondent

money. The great majority of the loan transactions occurred after respondent had

established an attorney-client relationship with Mr. Domingue. Respondent was

providing his legal services to Mr. Domingue free of charge. The attorney-client

relationship continued until May 2014.

The precise amount of funds Mr. Domingue loaned to respondent is unknown,

but respondent executed three different promissory notes in favor of Mr. Domingue,

in the amounts of $500,000, $151,675.61 and $151,675.61. Respondent testified

that at the time he executed the $500,000 promissory note, he owed Mr. Domingue

approximately $250,000, but the promissory note recited the higher amount so that

Mr. Domingue could obtain a $500,000 life insurance policy on respondent to

protect his investment.

On July 17, 2020, respondent filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Mr. Domingue

filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding amounting to $1,110,753.10.

Later, Mr. Domingue and respondent entered into a stipulation wherein respondent

4 The committee did not find respondent to be credible when he testified that Mr. Domingue gave him money initially but “didn’t expect to get it back.”

4 agreed that Mr. Domingue would be allowed a general unsecured claim in the

bankruptcy case in the amount of $541,910.41 and that $350,000 of said claim would

not be discharged and would survive the completion of the Chapter 11 Plan unless

paid under the Plan. This stipulation left the sum of $191,910.41 as potentially

dischargeable. As of December 21, 2022, respondent had not made any payments

to Mr. Domingue under the Chapter 11 Plan.

At some point, Mr. Domingue asked respondent to begin to repay the loans,

but respondent had trouble doing so. Respondent offered to enter into a payment

arrangement whereby a percentage of his net profits would be paid to Mr. Domingue.

However, respondent was careful to inform Mr. Domingue that “I cannot provide

you with a contract that gives you an ownership interest [in my law firm], cannot

form a partnership with you, and cannot share fees in order to repay you for financing

my firm. … In keeping with our many discussions, I intend to make a proposal where

the repayment obligation will vary each year based on my gross income that year.”

Respondent testified that he offered to pay Mr. Domingue a percentage of his entire

income, not to share legal fees with Mr. Domingue. Given the email exchanges

between respondent and Mr. Domingue, the committee found this testimony

credible.5

After respondent terminated the attorney-client relationship with Mr.

Domingue, they began litigating against one another in a civil action. Respondent

filed claims against Mr. Domingue for extortion and unfair trade practices. The civil

action was settled in conjunction with the bankruptcy proceeding.

Based on these facts, the committee determined that respondent violated Rules

1.8(a) and 8.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by entering into an improper

business relationship with a client. Respondent never advised Mr. Domingue in

5 The agreed upon repayment plan was never formalized in writing, although email discussions between Mr. Domingue and respondent negotiating the payment plan were admitted into evidence.

5 writing that he should seek independent legal counsel and never obtained Mr.

Domingue’s informed written consent to the loan transactions or proposed

repayment plans. The committee found that respondent did not share (or attempt to

share) legal fees with a non-lawyer, in violation of Rule 5.4(a), or engage in conduct

prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(d).

The committee determined respondent violated duties owed to his client. He

acted knowingly and caused actual injury to Mr. Domingue. Based on the ABA’s

Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined the baseline

sanction is suspension.

The committee determined that the following mitigating factors are present:

absence of a prior disciplinary record and inexperience in the practice of law. The

committee determined that no aggravating factors are present.

Based on these findings, the committee recommended respondent be

suspended for one year and one day, with all but ninety days deferred. The

committee also recommended that respondent be required to make restitution to Mr.

Domingue “as per the bankruptcy plan and stipulations entered into between them,”

and that respondent be assessed with the costs and expenses of this proceeding.

The ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s report.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation

After review, the disciplinary board determined that the hearing committee’s

factual findings are not manifestly erroneous and adopted same. Based on these

factual findings, the board determined respondent’s conduct violated the Rules of

Professional Conduct as found by the committee.

The board agreed that respondent violated duties owed to his client. His

actions were knowing and caused actual injury to Mr. Domingue, represented by the

large debt respondent owes to Mr. Domingue. Based on the ABA’s Standards for

6 Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the board determined the baseline sanction is

suspension.

The board determined that the following mitigating factors are present:

absence of a prior disciplinary record and inexperience in the practice of law. The

board determined that the only aggravating factor present is a pattern of misconduct.

Considering these findings, the court’s prior jurisprudence discussing similar

misconduct, and the totality of respondent’s misconduct, a majority of the board

concluded that the sanction recommended by the committee is reasonable.

Accordingly, the board majority recommended that respondent be suspended from

the practice of law for one year and one day, with all but ninety days deferred. The

board further recommended that respondent be required to make restitution to Mr.

Domingue in the amount of $541,910.41 and that he be assessed with the costs and

expenses of this matter.

One board member dissented and would recommend that no portion of the

recommended one year and one day suspension be deferred.

Respondent filed an objection to the board’s recommendation. Accordingly,

the case was docketed for oral argument pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, §

11(G)(1)(b).

DISCUSSION

Bar disciplinary matters fall within the original jurisdiction of this court. La.

Const. art. V, § 5(B). Consequently, we act as triers of fact and conduct an

independent review of the record to determine whether the alleged misconduct has

been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re: Banks, 09-1212 (La. 10/2/09),

18 So. 3d 57. While we are not bound in any way by the findings and

recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, we have held the

manifest error standard is applicable to the committee’s factual findings. See In re:

7 Caulfield, 96-1401 (La. 11/25/96), 683 So. 2d 714; In re: Pardue, 93-2865 (La.

3/11/94), 633 So. 2d 150.

The record establishes by clear and convincing evidence that respondent

entered into an improper business transaction with a client. This conduct violated

Rules 1.8(a) and 8.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Having found evidence of professional misconduct, we now turn to a

determination of the appropriate sanction for respondent’s actions. In determining

a sanction, we are mindful that disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain

high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession,

and deter future misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So. 2d 1173

(La. 1987). The discipline to be imposed depends upon the facts of each case and

the seriousness of the offenses involved considered in light of any aggravating and

mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So. 2d 520

(La. 1984).

Respondent violated duties owed to his client. His actions were knowing and

caused actual injury to Mr. Domingue. Based on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing

Lawyer Sanctions, the applicable baseline sanction is suspension. The aggravating

and mitigating factors found by the disciplinary board are supported by the record.

Both the hearing committee and the board found that the appropriate sanction

for respondent’s misconduct is a one year and one day suspension, with all but ninety

days deferred. Neither party has objected to this sanction, and so it is imposed, along

with a two-year period of probation. During the probationary period, respondent

must make good faith efforts to repay Mr. Domingue pursuant to the terms of the

Chapter 11 Plan, and provide quarterly reports to the ODC concerning his efforts in

this regard. At the conclusion of the probationary period, the ODC may file a motion

to extend probation if it feels there is a continued need for supervision, or the parties

8 can consent to renewing probation for an additional two-year term pursuant to

Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10(A)(3).

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee

and the disciplinary board, and considering the record, briefs, and oral argument, it

is ordered that Adam Granville Young, Louisiana Bar Roll number 30124, be and

he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day.

It is further ordered that all but ninety days of this suspension shall be deferred.

Following the completion of the active portion of his suspension, respondent shall

be placed on probation for a period of two years, governed by the conditions set forth

in this opinion. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent

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. All costs and expenses in the matter

of this disciplinary proceeding 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.

9 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

WEIMER, C.J., concurring in part, and dissenting in part:

After the Respondent’s bankruptcy proceedings, he agreed to reimburse the

full sum in restitution. When a civil obligation has been discharged in bankruptcy,

a natural obligation remains. La. C.C. art. 1762(1). By subsequently agreeing to the

pay the full amount to the complainant, the Respondent was again bound to fulfill

that obligation. See La. C.C. art. 1761. (“A contract made for the performance of a

natural obligation is onerous.”). Because the agreement to pay full restitution

occurred after bankruptcy, the disciplinary board is correct in its assessment of the

amount of restitution.