In re Stanford

Daniel Stanford and John Stockstill (defendants) represented a criminal defendant (father) who was charged with various sex crimes, including the rape of his 16-year-old daughter (victim). The victim initially cooperated with the prosecution. Upon learning that the victim no longer wanted to pursue charges against her father, Stockstill drafted a confidentiality agreement between the victim and her father. The victim then came to Stockstill and Stanford’s offices to meet with her father. Before that meeting, Stanford gave the victim the confidentiality agreement, which the victim reviewed and signed. Stanford did not explain the agreement or tell the victim that she could have an attorney review it. The agreement provided that communications during the meeting between the victim and her father were privileged and inadmissible in any legal proceeding and that neither party could be compelled to testify about them. If either party breached the agreement, that party would be liable for costs, expenses, and fees caused by the breach. The victim subsequently stopped cooperating with the prosecution. However, the victim later learned through her attorney that the agreement did not preclude her from testifying about the meeting in her father’s criminal case. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) (plaintiff) filed formal charges against Stanford and Stockstill, claiming, among other things, that they had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by unlawfully obstructing or causing another to obstruct a party’s access to evidence. At the formal hearing, Stockstill testified that the confidentiality agreement applied only to civil proceedings and was not intended to affect the victim’s testimony in the criminal case. Nevertheless, the hearing committee found that Stockstill’s and Stanford’s conduct violated various Rules of Professional Conduct. In addressing a sanction, the committee found several aggravating factors, including the attorneys’ refusal to acknowledge their wrongful conduct, their substantial legal experience, and the victim’s vulnerability. The committee also found several mitigating factors, including lack of prior discipline or selfish motive, as well as cooperation in the proceedings. The committee recommended that Stockstill and Stanford be suspended for six months with the suspension deferred. Both parties objected. On review, the disciplinary board recommended a two-year suspension with all but one year and one day deferred. Both parties again objected, bringing the matter before the Louisiana Supreme Court.