## Facts

- The Louisiana State Bar Association, through its Committee on Professional Responsibility, instituted disciplinary proceedings against attorney R. C. Edwins in the Louisiana Supreme Court.
- A commissioner was appointed to take evidence and report findings of fact and conclusions of law to the court.
- Edwins represented Donald Selzer in a maritime personal injury claim and made repeated cash advances to Selzer during the pendency of the litigation, anticipating repayment from any recovery and not limited to litigation expenses.
- Testimony indicated such advances were common in maritime practice and were expected by some seamen as part of retaining counsel.
- The commissioner found clear and convincing evidence that Edwins, assisted by an employee and another individual, visited injured Ralph H. Thomas at his home and sought to be retained, constituting solicitation.
- The commissioner concluded Edwins engaged in misconduct involving advancing money and failing to account for client funds; he also found solicitation as a fact but stated uncertainty about which disciplinary rule the solicitation violated as a matter of law.
- The Bar Association accepted the factual findings but objected to the commissioner’s legal conclusion that no specific solicitation rule was violated; Edwins did not file formal exceptions but contested the findings and conclusions through briefing and argument.

## Issues

1. Whether the court could review the commissioner’s adverse findings and conclusions despite Edwins’s failure to file formal exceptions.
2. Whether systematic cash advances to a client, beyond permitted litigation costs, violate disciplinary rules prohibiting financial assistance in connection with pending litigation.
3. Whether personally contacting an injured non-client at home to obtain employment constitutes prohibited solicitation under the disciplinary rules.
4. What discipline was appropriate if violations were found.

## Decision

- The court held it could review the commissioner’s report notwithstanding the absence of formal exceptions, treating the report as advisory and making an independent determination on the record.
- The court found Edwins’s practice of advancing money to Selzer in anticipation of recovery violated the disciplinary prohibition on providing financial assistance to clients beyond allowed litigation expenses.
- The court held Edwins’s home visit to Thomas to obtain representation constituted impermissible in-person solicitation under the disciplinary rules.
- The court imposed professional discipline calibrated to the seriousness of the violations while considering contextual factors, including prevailing maritime practices.

## Legal Principles

- In Louisiana attorney discipline, the Supreme Court conducts an independent review of facts and law; a commissioner’s report is advisory and does not limit the court’s authority.
- Disciplinary Rules are mandatory minimum standards enforceable through discipline; professional customs inconsistent with those rules do not excuse violations.
- Providing clients financial assistance tied to anticipated recovery (other than allowable litigation expenses) is prohibited because it risks conflicts of interest and improper stakes in the litigation.
- Direct, in-person contact with a prospective client—particularly an injured person—aimed at being retained is prohibited solicitation.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Supreme Court disciplined an attorney for advancing non-expense money to a client in anticipation of recovery and for in-person solicitation of an injured prospective client, reaffirming that disciplinary rules control over local practice and that the court independently evaluates the record in bar proceedings.


Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Edwins, 329 So. 2d 437 (La. 1976)