## Facts

- Joseph B. Amberg, Jr. was licensed to practice law in Louisiana.
- Amberg accepted advance-fee retainers from three separate clients for three separate legal matters and accepted a fourth client on a contingency-fee basis.
- In these matters, Amberg did no work or only some work and failed to move the clients’ cases forward.
- The four clients repeatedly called Amberg’s office seeking status reports or information, but Amberg did not return calls and did not keep the clients reasonably informed.
- The three retainer clients eventually asked for refunds of their advance payments, and all four clients asked Amberg to provide copies of their files.
- Amberg did not provide the requested refunds or the requested files.
- Those four clients, along with a fifth client, filed complaints with the Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA).
- During the LSBA’s investigation, Amberg did not respond to many communications and did not adequately cooperate with the LSBA’s requests for information.
- The LSBA filed disciplinary proceedings in the Louisiana Supreme Court based on the five client complaints, and the matters were consolidated into a single disciplinary case.
- Amberg asserted that he ultimately refunded one client’s retainer, but he admitted he had not refunded the other two retainers.
- Amberg attributed his failures to personal problems over several years, including a divorce, losing his home, relocating his office, a fire that destroyed files, and a family emergency involving his ex-wife.
- Around the same period, Amberg had recently been suspended for three years in a separate disciplinary matter involving mishandling client funds.

## Issues

1. Did Amberg’s conduct across the client matters—failing to act diligently, failing to communicate, failing to refund unearned fees and provide client files, and failing to cooperate with the LSBA’s investigation—constitute professional misconduct under the Louisiana Code of Professional Responsibility?
2. If so, what sanction was appropriate in light of the pattern of misconduct and Amberg’s recent prior suspension?

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court found that Amberg committed professional misconduct in connection with the client complaints.
- The court concluded that Amberg violated duties owed to clients by failing to handle matters with reasonable diligence and by failing to keep clients informed or respond to requests for information.
- The court also found misconduct based on Amberg’s failure to return unearned advance fees and to provide client files upon request.
- The court treated Amberg’s lack of meaningful cooperation with the LSBA’s investigation as additional misconduct and an aggravating circumstance.
- The court imposed a suspension from the practice of law and assessed costs against Amberg.

## Legal Principles

- A repeated pattern of neglect and failure to communicate in multiple client matters constitutes serious professional misconduct and warrants significant discipline.
- Advance fees remain subject to refund to the extent unearned; a lawyer must timely return unearned fees when the representation ends or when a refund is properly requested.
- A lawyer must timely surrender client property, including the client’s file, when requested.
- A lawyer’s failure to respond to and cooperate with bar investigators is independent misconduct and increases the sanction because it interferes with the court’s regulation of the profession.
- Personal difficulties may be considered in mitigation, but they do not excuse extended inaction, client neglect, or obstruction of disciplinary investigations.
- Recent prior discipline, especially a substantial suspension arising from the same general time period, supports a stronger sanction for additional misconduct.

## Conclusion

In consolidated disciplinary proceedings arising from five client complaints, the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that Joseph B. Amberg, Jr. neglected multiple matters, ignored repeated client requests for information, failed to return unearned retainers and provide client files, and did not adequately cooperate with the bar’s investigation; the court suspended him from practice and assessed costs, giving limited mitigating weight to his personal problems and substantial weight to his recent prior suspension.


Louisiana State Bar Association v. Amberg, 573 So. 2d 1093 (1991)