LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: GEORGE ALLEN ROTH WALSH NUMBER: 17-DB-008 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: GEORGE ALLEN ROTH WALSH NUMBER: 17-DB-008 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD"

Transcription

1 LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: GEORGE ALLEN ROTH WALSH NUMBER: 17-DB DB-008 6/21/2018 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD INTRODUCTION This is an attorney discipline matter based upon the filing of formal charges by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ( ODC ) against George Allen Roth Walsh ( Respondent ), Louisiana Bar Roll Number ODC alleged that Respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.1(c) (competence compliance with professional administrative requirements) and 5.5(a) (unauthorized practice of law). 2 The hearing committee ( committee ) assigned to the matter concluded the ODC proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Rules 1.1(c) 3 and 5.5(a). The committee recommended Respondent be suspended for six months, with all but thirty days deferred, with one year of unsupervised probation. For the following reasons, the Board adopts the committee s factual findings and conclusions regarding rule violations. As to sanction, the Board issues a public reprimand. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The formal charges were filed on March 6, The charges state, in pertinent part: The Office of the Disciplinary Counsel received the instant complaint from Complainant the Honorable Adam J. Haney, Judge, 19 th Judicial District Court, 1 Respondent is 39 years old and was admitted to the Louisiana Bar on 04/22/05. Respondent is currently eligible to practice law in Louisiana. 2 See attached Appendix for full text of the Rules. 3 The committee found that the ODC met its burden of proving Respondent did not timely comply with his Bar dues and disciplinary assessment payment and trust account registration obligations, but that the ODC did not meet its burden of proving Respondent failed to fulfill his MCLE requirements.

2 Parish of East Baton Rouge. Via letter dated June 10, 2016, Judge Haney notified the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel that Respondent had, on June 8, 2016, appeared before his court for the purpose of a detention hearing. During the hearing, Respondent formally enrolled as counsel of record in a juvenile proceeding. A member of the judge s staff later searched the Louisiana State Bar Association attorney roster database in an effort to update Respondent s contact information. At this time, the staff discovered that Respondent was ineligible to practice law. The Louisiana State Bar Association was contacted directly by the judge s staff, who confirmed to the judge that Respondent was ineligible to practice law because of his noncompliance with CLE requirements, unpaid Bar dues, unpaid disciplinary dues, and noncompliance with his trust accounting registration requirement. Judge Haney advised the ODC that his law clerk contacted Respondent to inform him that he was listed as ineligible to practice by the L.S.B.A. Respondent told the law clerk that he would investigate the matter and report back to the court, but as of the time of the letter to the ODC, Respondent had failed to contact the court to explain the matter. A copy of the formal complaint was sent, on July 11, 2016, to Respondent at his address registered with the L.S.B.A. Respondent filed no written response to the complaint. Investigation into the matter by the ODC revealed that Respondent was declared ineligible to practice law on September 9, 2015 for the reasons described by Judge Haney. Respondent was not reinstated to practice until July 6, The ODC sent two letters to Respondent to notify him that Judge Haney had filed a formal complaint against him, and to advise him of his obligation under Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.1 and Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XIX, Section 9C to cooperate with a formal ODC investigation. However, Respondent again failed to submit a response. A subpoena was prepared and served on Respondent, compelling his appearance at the ODC office on November 3, 2016 for a sworn statement. Respondent appeared for his scheduled statement, but refused to answer any questions asked by Deputy Disciplinary Counsel. Respondent communicated his intention of hiring attorney Chandler Loupe to represent him in this matter, and that he would not participate in the sworn statement at that time. This was noted in the statement, Respondent was again reminded of his obligation under L.R.P.C. Rule 8.1(c) to cooperate with a formal ODC investigation, and the statement was concluded. Respondent reappeared at the ODC office, on November 15, 2016, accompanied and represented by attorney Chandler Loupe. During his statement, Respondent admitted that he had engaged in the active and continuous practice of law from September 9, 2015 to June 8, 2016, the entire time that he was rendered ineligible to practice. Respondent admitted that he spoke with clients, accepted new clients, and likely accepted fees for legal representation. The complaint of Judge Haney confirms that Respondent also made court appearances as well during the time period that he was rendered ineligible. Respondent, by engaging in the 2

3 practice of law while determined to be ineligible, has violated Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1(c) and Rule 5.5(a). Through his counsel, J. Chandler Loupe, Respondent filed a letter response to the formal charges on July 14, Respondent acknowledged deficiencies and stated that upon notice of his deficiencies he fully complied by paying and registering as required. He further asserted that his lapse in compliance was not intentional, had been brought up to date, and no clients or any member of the Bar or judiciary had been harmed by his failures to comply. The hearing in this matter was held on October 16, 2017, before Hearing Committee No Deputy Disciplinary Counsel Paul E. Pendley appeared on behalf of the ODC. Respondent appeared with counsel, J. Chandler Loupe. The committee heard testimony from the following: Respondent, The Honorable Adam J. Haney (Juvenile Court Judge, East Baton Rouge Parish), and Michelle LaRose (LSBA Director of Finance and Membership). ODC s Exhibits ODC1 through ODC8 and Respondent s Exhibit Walsh 1 were admitted into evidence. The report of the hearing committee was filed on December 20, The ODC filed a notice of no objection to the committee report on January 10, Respondent filed an objection to the committee report on January 19, Respondent objected only on the basis that the committee s recommendation of the thirty (30) day suspension [is] an unreasonable penalty for the offense. ODC filed its brief to the Board on March 5, 2018, supporting the committee s findings (with the exception that ODC continues to state that the records of the LSBA still reflect that Respondent was MCLE-ineligible from May 31, 2014 to August 5, 2016), conclusions regarding rule violations, and sanction recommendation. The ODC further argues the recommended sanction 4 Hearing Committee No. 26 was comprised of Alexis M. Breedlove (Committee Chair), Joseph J. LaPlace III (Lawyer Member), and James R. Mobley (Public Member). 3

4 should also include attendance at the LSBA Ethics School. Respondent has not filed a brief for the Board s consideration. Oral argument of this matter was held on April 5, 2018, before Board Panel B. 5 Deputy Disciplinary Counsel Paul E. Pendley appeared on behalf of ODC. Respondent appeared with counsel, J. Chandler Loupe. conclusions: HEARING COMMITTEE REPORT In its report filed on December 20, 2017, the committee made the following findings and For the following reasons, the Committee finds: 1) ODC did not meet its burden of proof with regard to Mr. Walsh s MCLE requirements for the period of May 2014 to August ) ODC met its burden of proof with regard to Mr. Walsh s failure to update his IOLTA client trust account information from September 9, 2015 to June 6, ) ODC met its burden of proof with regard to Mr. Walsh s failure to pay his disciplinary assessment from September 9, 2015 to July 5, ) ODC met its burden of proof with regard to Mr. Walsh s failure to pay his LSBA bar dues from September 9, 2015 to July 5, * * * FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon Walsh Exhibit 1 and the testimony of Mr. Walsh, the Committee finds that Mr. Walsh completed his MCLE requirements for the period of May 2014 through June Mr. Walsh and his attorney, Chandler Loupe, presented the Board with a MCLE transcript from the Louisiana Supreme Court website. The transcript properly identified Mr. Walsh and indicated that all MCLE requirements had been completed for the years in question. This information was supported by Mr. Walsh s testimony. Further, ODC could not provide any evidence to the contrary as Ms. LaRose was unable to testify regarding MCLE requirements and the adequacy of the reporting of such information to her office. See Walsh Transcript, pp. 40, 52-53, 81-84; p. 99, line 25; p. 90, lines Based upon the testimony of Ms. LaRose; the testimony of Mr. Walsh; and ODC Exhibit 8, the Committee finds that Mr. Walsh failed to pay his LSBA bar 5 Board Panel B was composed of Pamela W. Carter (Chair), Dominick Scandurro, Jr. (Lawyer Member), and Sheila E. O Leary (Public Member). 6 The testimony on page 99 of the hearing transcript cited by the committee does not relate to the MCLE issue, but see T.59. 4

5 dues and disciplinary assessment for the period of September 9, 2015 to July 5, Ms. LaRose testified that her office was responsible for the collection and reporting of the LSBA bar dues and disciplinary assessments, and her records revealed that Mr. Walsh had not paid his dues during the period in question. Mr. Walsh also admitted that he failed to pay his dues and assessment. See Walsh Transcript, p. 79, lines 1-12; p. 87, lines Based upon the testimony of Mr. Walsh and ODC Exhibit 8, the Committee finds that Mr. Walsh failed to report his trust account for the period of September 9, 2015 to July 5, Ms. LaRose was unable to testify regarding the trust account and the adequacy of the reporting of such information to her office. However, Mr. Walsh admitted to his reporting failure, which was supported by ODC Exhibit 8. See Walsh Transcript, p. 59, lines 7-15; p. 89, lines Based upon the testimony of Judge Adam Haney and Mr. Walsh, the Committee finds that Mr. Walsh did practice law while ineligible. Judge Haney confirmed that his first encounter with Mr. Walsh was while Mr. Walsh was representing a client before him in Juvenile Court. This encounter occurred during the period when Mr. Walsh was declared ineligible. Moreover, Mr. Walsh admitted to this encounter and others during his period of ineligibility. See Walsh Transcript, p. 29, lines 8-25; p. 30, lines 1-23; p. 94, lines 18-25; p. 95, lines 1-25; p. 96, lines Based upon the testimony of Mr. Walsh and ODC Exhibits 2, 3 and 8, the Committee finds that Mr. Walsh changed office locations (601 Napoleon Street to/from rd Street) and office personnel multiple times during the period in question. However, ODC Exhibit 8 includes a Notice of Delinquency and Certificate of Ineligibility addressed to Mr. Walsh at the rd Street address and a Certificate of Ineligibility to the 601 Napoleon Street address. Therefore, the Committee also finds that Mr. Walsh received adequate notice of the delinquency and ineligibility. Nevertheless, the Committee believes this to be a mitigating factor in light of the possibility of crossed, misplaced or mishandled mail. It is also worth noting that Mr. Walsh shares a name and, at times, an office with his father, which may add to the confusion. See Walsh Transcript, p. 77, lines 20-22; p. 78, lines 1-25; p. 79, lines 1-12; p. 80, lines 1-2; p. 86, lines 2-21; p. 92, lines Based upon the testimony of Judge Haney and Mr. Walsh, the Committee finds that there is no evidence of complaint by any of Mr. Walsh s clients or of any actual harm being experienced by any of Mr. Walsh s clients during Mr. Walsh s period of ineligibility. Judge Haney testified that he did not receive any reports or witness any issues while Mr. Walsh was before him, and Mr. Walsh testified that he has not received any complaints from clients, requests for reimbursement of funds, or notice of malpractice. See Walsh Transcript, p. 34, lines 10-22; 85, lines 1-3 and The LADB record; the testimony of Judge Haney; and ODC Exhibits 4, 5, 6 and 7, support a finding that Mr. Walsh participated in full and free disclosure with the disciplinary board and had a cooperative attitude during the proceedings. The Committee does have some concerns regarding the ODC s initial attempts to 7 The testimony on page 87 of the hearing transcript cited by the committee does not relate to the failure to pay Bar dues or disciplinary assessment. However, see also, T.84, 88 on these issues. 5

6 locate Mr. Walsh. The ODC sent two letters to Respondent to notify him that Judge Haney had filed a formal against [sic] him. The ODC utilized the past two addresses on the LSBA record when sending the letters (601 Napoleon Street and rd Street). Both letters were returned as moved, left no address. However, Mr. Walsh received notice of the subpoena served upon him at the 601 Napoleon Street address, which compelled his appearance at the ODC office on November 3, 2016, for a sworn statement. The question was not posed, so we do not know how Mr. Walsh obtained a copy of the subpoena. Nonetheless, he appeared for his sworn statement on the date required. The evidence shows that, after Mr. Walsh obtained the subpoena, he fully and completely cooperated with the investigation. He appeared for his sworn statement (in which he provided a Kleinert Avenue address) and retained and [sic] attorney who filed a formal responses [sic] on his behalf. See Walsh Transcript, p. 31, lines 14-25; p. 32, lines 19-25; p. 84, lines Based upon Mr. Walsh s testimony and overall demeanor during the hearing, the Committee finds that he feels remorse for his behavior. Mr. Walsh apologized and tried to avoid excuse throughout the hearing. See Walsh Transcript, p. 88, lines There is no evidence of Mr. Walsh having a prior disciplinary record. However, the Committee notes that ODC Exhibit 8 reveals a prior period of ineligibility from September 9, 2014 to February 4, 2015 although this period was not included in the charges it is an aggravating factor as the authenticity and accuracy of ODC Exhibit 8 was not challenged. See Walsh Transcript, p. 84, lines Committee Report, pp. 1-2, 4-7. The committee concluded that Respondent violated Rules 1.1(c) and 5.5(a). In addressing the appropriate sanction to be imposed for these violations, the committee first considered the factors outlined in Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XIX, 10(C). The committee found that Respondent violated duties owed to the profession. The committee also found that Respondent acted negligently and that no evidence was provided to indicate that Respondent s misconduct caused actual harm, only potential harm. Committee Report, pp The committee then provided the following analysis in reaching its recommendation regarding the appropriate sanction to be imposed: The ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions suggest the baseline sanction for Respondent s misconduct. Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a 6

7 professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public or the legal system. However, suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public or the legal system. Mitigating factors include: absence of a prior disciplinary record, absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, timely good faith effort to rectify consequences of misconduct, full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board, cooperative attitude during the proceedings, multiple changes in office location, multiple changes in office personnel, and remorse. Aggravating factors include: years of experience in practicing law, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and vulnerability of the victim/client. The following cases are similar to the instant matter: In re: Gair Oldenburg, (La. 10/16/09), 19 So.3d 455, wherein the Respondent practiced law while ineligible for failure to comply with his MCLE requirements in violation of Rule 5.5. Once notified, the Respondent paid his MCL [sic] re-instatement fee and incorrectly assumed it re-instated him to active practice. However, he had also failed to reimburse the MCLE course provider. He subsequently engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The MCLE course provider was reimbursed once notified of the problem. Unlike Mr. Walsh, the Respondent had an extensive history of ineligibility and prior disciplinary record. But, like Mr. Walsh, mitigating factors included the absence of dishonest or selfish motive, full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board and a cooperative attitude toward proceedings, and remorse. The Respondent was suspended six months, all but thirty days deferred with two years of unsupervised probation. In re: C. Blasé McCarthy, Jr., (La. 1/25/08), 972 So.2d 1143, the Respondent failed to comply with his MCLE requirements, failed to pay his bar dues and the disciplinary assessment, then practiced law while ineligible in violation of Rules 1.1(b), 3.4(c), 5.5(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d). Aggravating factors included a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct. Mitigating factors included the absence of prior discipline. The Respondent was suspended for six months, followed by one year of unsupervised probation. While similar aggravating factors exist in the instant case, Mr. Walsh has acknowledged the wrongful nature of his actions and has provided additional mitigating factors. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing findings of facts and jurisprudence, the Committee recommends Mr. Walsh be suspended from the practice of law for six months, with all but thirty days deferred, with one year of unsupervised probation. Committee Report, pp

8 ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD BEFORE THE BOARD I. Standard of Review The powers and duties of the Disciplinary Board are defined in 2 of Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XIX. Rule XIX, 2(G)(2) states that the Board has the power (a) [t]o perform appellate review functions, consisting of review of the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of hearing committees with respect to formal charges and petitions for reinstatement, and prepare and forward to the court its own findings, if any, and recommendations (b) [t]o administer reprimands; Inasmuch as the Board is serving in an appellate capacity, the standard of review applied to findings of fact is that of manifest error. Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So. 2d 1330 (La. 1978); Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So. 2d 840 (La. 1989). The Board conducts a de novo review of the hearing committee s application of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In re Hill, 90-DB-004, Recommendation of the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board (1/22/92). A. The Manifest Error Inquiry The factual findings of the committee do not appear to be manifestly erroneous, are supported by the record, and are adopted by the Board. B. De Novo Review The ODC proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Rules 1.1(c) and 5.5(a). Respondent was ineligible to practice for ten months between September 15, 2015, through July 6, 2016, due to failure to pay his Bar dues and disciplinary assessment and noncompliance with his trust accounting registration requirement. 8 He admitted that he continued 8 With respect to his noncompliance with trust account registration requirements, Respondent does not have a trust account. He works for his father, also an attorney, and his father maintains a trust account for the firm. However, Respondent failed to fulfill the requirement that he declare annually that he did not have or manage a trust account. See, T.78, 85,

9 to practice law (including two court appearances, communicating with clients, accepting fees, and taking on new clients) during this time period, although he was not actually aware that he was ineligible to do so as discussed in the committee s report quoted previously herein. See also, Respondent s Sworn Statement Transcript, pp For the reasons outlined in the committee s report, the ODC did not meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not satisfy his MCLE requirements or any rule violation based on that allegation. II. The Appropriate Sanction A. Rule XIX, 10(C) Factors Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XIX, 10(C) states that when imposing a sanction after a finding of lawyer misconduct, the Court or Board shall consider the following factors: 1. whether the lawyer has violated a duty owed to a client, to the public, to the legal system, or to the profession; 2. whether the lawyer acted intentionally, knowingly, or negligently; 3. the amount of actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer s misconduct; and 4. the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors. Here, Respondent violated duties to the profession and the legal system. The committee s determination that Respondent acted negligently is supported by the evidence. Respondent was aware of his professional obligations with respect to payment of dues and assessments and annual reporting, but simply overlooked fulfilling the requirements. While the obligations were ultimately his responsibility, these administrative tasks had generally been handled by others in his office. The committee was justified in accepting Respondent s testimony that he did not actually know he was ineligible to practice. Therefore, he acted negligently when he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. There is no evidence that any actual harm was caused by 9

10 Respondent s misconduct. However, there was the potential for harm to his clients or the legal system during the ten-month period that Respondent was ineligible to practice law. The following mitigating factors are supported by the evidence: absence of prior disciplinary record; absence of dishonest or selfish motive; full and free disclosure to disciplinary board and cooperative attitude toward proceedings; timely good faith effort to rectify consequences of misconduct once he realized that he was ineligible, and remorse. The only aggravating factor present is one past instance of ineligibility to practice for a period of five months from September 9, 2014, through February 4, 2015, for failure to pay his Bar dues and disciplinary assessment, although Respondent has not been charged with any disciplinary violation for this period of ineligibility. 9 Here again, Respondent testified that he was not actually aware that he was ineligible during the period. See T.98 B. The ABA Standards and Case Law The ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions suggest the baseline sanction for Respondent s misconduct is reprimand. Standard 7.3 provides: 7.3 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. The Commentary to Standard 7.3 explains that [r]eprimand is the appropriate sanction in most cases of a violation of a duty owed to the profession. Usually there is little or no injury to a client, the public, or the legal system, and the purposes of lawyer discipline will be best served by imposing a public sanction that helps educate the respondent lawyer and deter future violations. 9 In both In re Oldenburg, (La. 10/16/09), 19 So.3d 455; and In re Fisher, (La. 12/18/09), 24 So.3d 191; the Court considered the respondents ineligibility due to past failures to comply with professional administrative obligations in determining the sanction to be imposed. As detailed later herein, the history of noncompliance in each of those two cases is more egregious than that of Mr. Walsh here. 10

11 In cases involving the unauthorized practice of law while ineligible for failure to comply with professional administrative obligations, the Supreme Court has stated that the baseline sanction is generally a one-year and one-day suspension, some portion of which may be deferred. See e.g., In re Ray, (La. 9/13/13), 123 So.3d 707, 711; In re Fisher, (La. 12/18/09), 24 So.3d 191, 195; In re McCarthy, (La. 1/25/08), 972 So.2d 1143, 1147; In re Hardy, (La. 5/2/03), 848 So.2d 511, 515. However, the case law includes decisions imposing sanctions ranging from public reprimand to a short suspension, and in some cases, no sanction at all for minor violations. It appears that in most of the cases in which suspension has been imposed, the respondents conduct was knowing or intentional, not negligent. Despite finding that Respondent s conduct was negligent and caused no actual harm, the committee recommended a sanction of suspension in this matter. However, reprimand appears to be the more appropriate sanction here considering all the circumstances presented and the fact that Respondent acted negligently. While Respondent should have been more vigilant about ensuring his obligations regarding dues, disciplinary assessment, and trust reporting were satisfied, there is no indication he knowingly or intentionally failed to fulfill these administrative requirements. Further, once he realized he had been certified ineligible, he timely rectified the situation. Respondent testified that his administrative failures may have been attributable, in part, to certain confusion in his office, including multiple changes of address, changes in secretarial staff, and the fact that he shares the same name, and at times, the same office with his father. Nonetheless, he recognized that the obligations were his alone and that confusion in his office did not excuse his failures and he appeared genuinely remorseful for his mistakes. T.79-80, 88, 90, 98. The Oldenburg and McCarthy cases relied upon by the committee in its sanction discussion quoted previously are distinguishable from the current matter. Most significantly, the misconduct 11

12 of the respondents in both cases was determined to be knowing, not negligent. In McCarthy (sixmonth suspension with one-year probation with additional conditions), the respondent was actually found to have violated Rule 3.4(c) (knowing disobedience of an obligation under the rules of a tribunal) and he refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his misconduct. Additionally, in Oldenburg (six-month suspension, all but thirty days deferred, subject to two-year probation with additional conditions), the respondent had a prior disciplinary record which included an admonition in 1994 for failing to cooperate with the ODC in two investigations and a public reprimand with one-year probation in 2003 for neglecting two legal matters. 10 Further, in addition to the sixteen-month period ( ) of ineligibility at issue before the Court in Oldenburg, the respondent also had several prior periods of ineligibility, including, but not limited to, six weeks in 1992, seven weeks in 1993, eight months in , and another month later in The circumstances in In re Fisher, (La. 12/18/09), 24 So.3d 191, cited by the ODC in its brief, are similarly distinguishable from those presented here. In Fisher, the respondent was ineligible to practice for ten months in for failure to pay his Bar dues and disciplinary assessment. The respondent was found to have violated Rule 5.5(a) for representing a client during this period of ineligibility. As a result, he was suspended for one year, with all but ninety days deferred, subject to a one-year supervised probation. The Court found the respondent s conduct was knowing and caused actual harm as opposed to the circumstances here in which Respondent s conduct was negligent and caused no actual harm. Additionally, unlike Respondent here, Mr. Fisher had a prior disciplinary record which included four separate admonitions, one of which was imposed for practicing law while ineligible to do so. Further, in Fisher, from 1992 to 2008, the respondent had been ineligible to practice law on no less than eleven separate 10 It is noted that in Oldenburg, the Board had ordered a public reprimand and the ODC sought review. 12

13 occasions for failure to pay Bar dues, failure to pay disciplinary assessment and/or failure to file a trust account disclosure statement. Fisher, at 196. Fisher also involved the additional aggravating factor of substantial experience in the practice of law. Several mitigating factors were also present: absence of dishonest or selfish motive, cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, good character and reputation, and remorse. The ODC also cites the decision in In re Carter, (La. 10/11/13), 128 So.3d 990, in which the Court imposed a six-month suspension, fully deferred, subject to a two-year probation and attendance at LSBA Ethics School, for violating Rule 5.5(a). 11 The respondent in Carter was either inactive or ineligible from 2002 through He intended to take inactive status, but due to administrative technicalities, he was determined ineligible. Regardless, he was not authorized to practice law during this time. For approximately two years during the eight-year period in which the respondent knew he was not on active status, the respondent provided ongoing legal advice and services to a client/old friend. He understood and told the client that he was inactive and avoided filing pleadings or appearing in court, engaging another lawyer for these services. The Court explained the respondent mistakenly thought that his inactivity allowed him to provide limited legal services to the client. Carter, at 996. The Court found that the respondent acted negligently and caused no actual harm. However, because of the significant potential harm, the Court determined the baseline sanction was suspension. The one aggravating factor was substantial experience in the practice of law. Mitigating factors included: absence of prior disciplinary record, absence of dishonest or selfish motive, personal or emotional problems, and full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board and cooperative attitude toward the proceedings. 11 Justice Johnson dissented in part rejecting the sanctions imposed as too lenient. 13

14 Not all instances of practicing law while ineligible have resulted in suspension and, in at least one instance, charges have been dismissed for a minor, negligent violation of Rule 5.5(a) which caused no harm. The respondent in In re Phillips, Disciplinary Board Ruling, 11-DB-073 (6/6/01), was publicly reprimanded for violations which included the unauthorized practice of law. The respondent practiced law while ineligible for three months due to her failure to pay Bar dues and disciplinary assessment and failure to register her trust account. The Board attributed these failures to the fact that the respondent had been seriously ill during the two months preceding her ineligibility. The Board found the respondent s actions were largely negligent and caused no actual harm. Significantly, unlike Respondent here, Ms. Phillips was charged in a second, unrelated count with violating Rule 7.10 (using false, misleading, or deceptive firm name, logo, letterhead, professional designation, trade name, or service mark). The Board found that the respondent violated this rule, but that no additional sanction other than the public reprimand was warranted. In In re Denny, Disciplinary Board Ruling, 07-DB-073 (1/9/09), the charges were dismissed despite a finding that the respondent violated Rule 5.5(a) by practicing law while ineligible due to failure to comply with MCLE requirements. The respondent had received prior notice from the Louisiana Supreme Court that if he did not resolve an issue regarding the number of his CLE hours by a certain date, he would be deemed ineligible, but failed to remedy the situation. The Board found that respondent had acquired sufficient CLE hours to fulfill his MCLE requirement, but the hours were not properly reported because of a miscommunication with his secretary. The Board concluded that the respondent s conduct constituted a minor violation of the rules, was not intentional or the result of a dishonest or selfish motive, and caused no actual harm. Upon realizing that he was ineligible, the respondent immediately corrected the problem. The 14

15 respondent had no prior record and expressed remorse for his negligence. The Board concluded no fmmal discipline was warranted and dismissed the charges. Considering the ABA Standards and the above review of the jurisprudence, the Board concludes that a public reprimand is the most appropriate sanction in this matter based on the totality of the evidence presented. RULING Considering the foregoing, the Board hereby issues a public reprimand to George Allen Roth Walsh. In addition, the Board orders that he pay all costs and expenses associated with these disciplinary proceedings in accordance with Rule XIX, Section 10.1 (A). LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD Linda G. Bizzarro Pamela W. Carter Brian D. Landry Dominick Scandurro, Jr. Danna E. Schwab Evans C. Spiceland, Jr. Melissa L. Theriot Charles H. Williamson, Jr. 15

16 APPENDIX Rule 1.1 Competence... (c) A lawyer is required to comply with all of the requirements of the Supreme Court s rules regarding annual registration, including payment of Bar dues, payment of the disciplinary assessment, timely notification of changes of address, and proper disclosure of trust account information or any changes therein. Rule 5.5 Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law (a) A lawyer shall not practice law in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: MICHAEL A. BETTS NUMBER: 15-DB-054 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD INTRODUCTION

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: MICHAEL A. BETTS NUMBER: 15-DB-054 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD INTRODUCTION LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: MICHAEL A. BETTS NUMBER: 15-DB-054 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 15-DB-054 4/19/2017 INTRODUCTION This is a discipline matter based upon

More information

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: ROY JOSEPH RICHARD, JR. NUMBER: 14-DB-051 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: ROY JOSEPH RICHARD, JR. NUMBER: 14-DB-051 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: ROY JOSEPH RICHARD, JR. NUMBER: 14-DB-051 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT 14-DB-051 1/12/2016 INTRODUCTION This is a disciplinary matter

More information

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: KEVIN MICHAEL STEEL NUMBER: 17-DB-018 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: KEVIN MICHAEL STEEL NUMBER: 17-DB-018 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: KEVIN MICHAEL STEEL NUMBER: 17-DB-018 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION This is an attorney discipline matter based upon the filing

More information

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: SATRICA WILLIAMS-BENSAADAT NUMBER: 12-DB-046

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: SATRICA WILLIAMS-BENSAADAT NUMBER: 12-DB-046 ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: SATRICA WILLIAMS-BENSAADAT NUMBER: 12-DB-046 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 12-DB-046 7/27/2015 INTRODUCTION This is a disciplinary

More information

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: RAUSHANAH SHAKIA HUNTER NUMBER: 16-DB-085 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: RAUSHANAH SHAKIA HUNTER NUMBER: 16-DB-085 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: RAUSHANAH SHAKIA HUNTER NUMBER: 16-DB-085 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION This attorney discipline matter arises out of formal charges

More information

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: LOUIS JEROME STANLEY NUMBER: 14-DB-042 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD INTRODUCTION

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: LOUIS JEROME STANLEY NUMBER: 14-DB-042 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD INTRODUCTION LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 14-DB-042 3/1/2016 IN RE: LOUIS JEROME STANLEY NUMBER: 14-DB-042 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD INTRODUCTION This is an attorney disciplinary

More information

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JOSE W. VEGA RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JOSE W. VEGA RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JOSE W. VEGA NUMBER: 16-DB-093 16-DB-093 2/8/2018 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION This attorney discipline matter arises out of formal

More information

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: KEISHA M. JONES-JOSEPH NUMBER: 14-DB-035 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: KEISHA M. JONES-JOSEPH NUMBER: 14-DB-035 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 14-DB-035 8/14/2015 IN RE: KEISHA M. JONES-JOSEPH NUMBER: 14-DB-035 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION This is an attorney discipline matter

More information

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE SHARON YVETTE FLORENCE 16-DB-059 RULING OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD INTRODUCTION

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE SHARON YVETTE FLORENCE 16-DB-059 RULING OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD INTRODUCTION LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 16-DB-059 9/8/2017 IN RE SHARON YVETTE FLORENCE 16-DB-059 RULING OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD INTRODUCTION This is an attorney discipline matter based upon the filing

More information

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JULIE ANN FUSILIER NUMBER: 14-DB-052 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JULIE ANN FUSILIER NUMBER: 14-DB-052 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION ORIGINAL Louisiana Attorne\ Disci linary Boud FILED by: cf_ynb~ Docket# Filed-On 14-DB-052 1/5/2016 LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JULIE ANN FUSILIER NUMBER: 14-DB-052 RECOMMENDATION TO THE

More information

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: TRISHA ANN WARD NUMBER: 16-DB-017 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: TRISHA ANN WARD NUMBER: 16-DB-017 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: TRISHA ANN WARD NUMBER: 16-DB-017 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION This is an attorney disciplinary matter based upon the filing of

More information

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: EDWARD BISSAU MENDY NUMBER: 14-DB-041 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: EDWARD BISSAU MENDY NUMBER: 14-DB-041 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 14-DB-041 3/11/2016 IN RE: EDWARD BISSAU MENDY NUMBER: 14-DB-041 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION This attorney disciplinary matter

More information

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: CHARLES L. DIRKS, III NUMBER: 15-DB-056 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: CHARLES L. DIRKS, III NUMBER: 15-DB-056 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: CHARLES L. DIRKS, III NUMBER: 15-DB-056 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION This is a discipline matter based upon the filing of formal

More information

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-1043 IN RE: MARK G. SIMMONS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-1043 IN RE: MARK G. SIMMONS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING 10/16/2017 "See News Release 049 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 2017-B-1043 IN RE: MARK G. SIMMONS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING PER CURIAM This disciplinary matter

More information

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: ANDREW CRAIG CHRISTENBERRY. NUMBER: 03-DB-052 c/w 05-DB-055

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: ANDREW CRAIG CHRISTENBERRY. NUMBER: 03-DB-052 c/w 05-DB-055 LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: ANDREW CRAIG CHRISTENBERRY NUMBER: 03-DB-052 c/w 05-DB-055 AMENDED RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT This is a disciplinary proceeding based upon

More information

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 13-B-2461 IN RE: ANDREW C. CHRISTENBERRY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 13-B-2461 IN RE: ANDREW C. CHRISTENBERRY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 01/27/2014 "See News Release 005 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 13-B-2461 IN RE: ANDREW C. CHRISTENBERRY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary

More information

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-1208 IN RE: DOUGLAS KENT HALL ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-1208 IN RE: DOUGLAS KENT HALL ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING 09/18/2015 "See News Release 045 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 2015-B-1208 IN RE: DOUGLAS KENT HALL ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING PER CURIAM This disciplinary

More information

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: RANDALL J. CASHIO NUMBER: 14-DB-001 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: RANDALL J. CASHIO NUMBER: 14-DB-001 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: RANDALL J. CASHIO NUMBER: 14-DB-001 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 14-DB-001 8/27/2015 INTRODUCTION This attorney disciplinary

More information

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: SCOTT ROBERT HYMEL. NUMBER: 13-DB-030 c/w 14-DB-007

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: SCOTT ROBERT HYMEL. NUMBER: 13-DB-030 c/w 14-DB-007 ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: SCOTT ROBERT HYMEL NUMBER: 13-DB-030 c/w 14-DB-007 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT 13-DB-030 c/w 14-DB-007 6/1/2015 INTRODUCTION This

More information

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: GEORGE RANDY TRELLES NUMBER: 12-DB-031 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: GEORGE RANDY TRELLES NUMBER: 12-DB-031 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: GEORGE RANDY TRELLES NUMBER: 12-DB-031 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 12-DB-031 10/29/2013 This is a disciplinary proceeding based

More information

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-2342 IN RE: CARLA ANN BROWN-MANNING ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-2342 IN RE: CARLA ANN BROWN-MANNING ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING 03/04/2016 "See News Release 012 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 2015-B-2342 IN RE: CARLA ANN BROWN-MANNING ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING PER CURIAM This disciplinary

More information

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: ALI ZITO SHIELDS. NUMBER: 12-DB-038 c/w 13-DB-053 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: ALI ZITO SHIELDS. NUMBER: 12-DB-038 c/w 13-DB-053 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: ALI ZITO SHIELDS NUMBER: 12-DB-038 c/w 13-DB-053 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION This matter consists of two sets of formal

More information

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-1077 IN RE: RAYMOND CHARLES BURKART III ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-1077 IN RE: RAYMOND CHARLES BURKART III ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING 11/05/2018 "See News Release 049 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 2018-B-1077 IN RE: RAYMOND CHARLES BURKART III ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING PER CURIAM This disciplinary

More information

NO. 01-B-1642 IN RE: CHARLES R. ROWE ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

NO. 01-B-1642 IN RE: CHARLES R. ROWE ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 9/21/01 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 01-B-1642 IN RE: CHARLES R. ROWE ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This matter arises from a petition for consent discipline filed by respondent, Charles

More information

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: KERI GLENN ARMSTRONG NUMBER: 13-DB-062 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: KERI GLENN ARMSTRONG NUMBER: 13-DB-062 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 13-DB-062 2/10/2015 IN RE: KERI GLENN ARMSTRONG NUMBER: 13-DB-062 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION This attorney disciplinary matter

More information

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JALILA ESHE BULLOCK NUMBER: 14-DB-033 INTRODUCTION

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JALILA ESHE BULLOCK NUMBER: 14-DB-033 INTRODUCTION ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JALILA ESHE BULLOCK NUMBER: 14-DB-033 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT l.uuisiana \!torn.:\ Disl i 1linan Boar d FILE D by:~-~ Docket#

More information

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: RANDY J. UNGAR NUMBER: 15-DB-012 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: RANDY J. UNGAR NUMBER: 15-DB-012 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT ORIGINAL 15-DB-012 4/1/2016 LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: RANDY J. UNGAR NUMBER: 15-DB-012 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This petition

More information

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE MICHAEL SEAN REID NUMBER 17-DB-006 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE MICHAEL SEAN REID NUMBER 17-DB-006 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION ORIGINAL 17-DB-006 5/23/2018 LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE MICHAEL SEAN REID NUMBER 17-DB-006 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION This attorney disciplinary matter

More information

107 ADOPTED RESOLUTION

107 ADOPTED RESOLUTION ADOPTED RESOLUTION 1 2 3 RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association reaffirms the black letter of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions as adopted February, 1986, and amended February 1992,

More information

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: HILLIARD CHARLES FAZANDE III DOCKET NO. 18-DB-055 REPORT OF HEARING COMMITTEE # 37 INTRODUCTION

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: HILLIARD CHARLES FAZANDE III DOCKET NO. 18-DB-055 REPORT OF HEARING COMMITTEE # 37 INTRODUCTION LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: HILLIARD CHARLES FAZANDE III DOCKET NO. 18-DB-055 REPORT OF HEARING COMMITTEE # 37 INTRODUCTION This attorney disciplinary matter arises out of formal charges

More information

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JOHNNY S. ANZALONE. 15-DB-004 c/w 15-DB-053 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JOHNNY S. ANZALONE. 15-DB-004 c/w 15-DB-053 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JOHNNY S. ANZALONE 15-DB-004 c/w 15-DB-053 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION This attorney disciplinary matter arises out of two sets

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 118,378. In the Matter of LANCE M. HALEY, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 118,378. In the Matter of LANCE M. HALEY, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 118,378 In the Matter of LANCE M. HALEY, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed March 2, 2018. One-year

More information

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTNERS, SUPERVISORY, AND SUBORDINATE LAWYERS

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTNERS, SUPERVISORY, AND SUBORDINATE LAWYERS ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTNERS, SUPERVISORY, AND SUBORDINATE LAWYERS THE LOUISIANA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT RULE 5.1 The Louisiana Supreme Court adopted Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct

More information

NO. 06-B-2702 IN RE: HERSY JONES, JR. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

NO. 06-B-2702 IN RE: HERSY JONES, JR. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 03/30/2007 See News Release 022 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 06-B-2702 IN RE: HERSY JONES, JR. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary matter

More information

S18Y0833, S18Y0834, S18Y0835, S18Y0836, S18Y0837. IN THE MATTER OF S. QUINN JOHNSON (five cases).

S18Y0833, S18Y0834, S18Y0835, S18Y0836, S18Y0837. IN THE MATTER OF S. QUINN JOHNSON (five cases). In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: June 4, 2018 S18Y0833, S18Y0834, S18Y0835, S18Y0836, S18Y0837. IN THE MATTER OF S. QUINN JOHNSON (five cases). PER CURIAM. This Court rejected the first petition

More information

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: WADE P. RICHARD NUMBER: 13-DB-016 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: WADE P. RICHARD NUMBER: 13-DB-016 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: WADE P. RICHARD NUMBER: 13-DB-016 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT 13-DB-016 8/7/2014 This is a disciplinary proceeding based upon the

More information

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-0408 IN RE: BRUCE C. ASHLEY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-0408 IN RE: BRUCE C. ASHLEY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING 05/25/2018 "See News Release 026 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 2018-B-0408 IN RE: BRUCE C. ASHLEY ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING PER CURIAM This disciplinary matter

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC01-114 PER CURIAM. THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. JONATHAN ISAAC ROTSTEIN, Respondent. [November 7, 2002] We have for review a referee s report regarding alleged ethical

More information

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS Definitions Adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in Grievance Administrator v Lopatin, 462 Mich 235, 238 n 1 (2000) Injury is harm to a

More information

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Supreme Court of Louisiana Supreme Court of Louisiana FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #063 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 9th day of December, 2014, are as follows: PER CURIAM:

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 1410 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : No. 88 DB 2008 V. : Attorney Registration No. 46472 JEFFRY STEPHEN PEARSON, Respondent

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC96979 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. MELODY RIDGLEY FORTUNATO, Respondent. [March 22, 2001] PER CURIAM. We have for review a referee s report recommending that attorney

More information

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Supreme Court of Louisiana Supreme Court of Louisiana FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #023 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 5th day of May, 2015, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2014-B

More information

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JOSEPH GEORGE PASTOREK, II NUMBER 12-DB-010 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JOSEPH GEORGE PASTOREK, II NUMBER 12-DB-010 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 12-DB-010 8/25/2017 IN RE: JOSEPH GEORGE PASTOREK, II NUMBER 12-DB-010 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION This is an attorney discipline matter

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 113,928. In the Matter of ELIZABETH ANNE HUEBEN, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 113,928. In the Matter of ELIZABETH ANNE HUEBEN, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 113,928 In the Matter of ELIZABETH ANNE HUEBEN, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed October 30,

More information

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JOHN D. RAY NUMBER: 11-DB-101 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JOHN D. RAY NUMBER: 11-DB-101 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 11-DB-101 6/3/2013 IN RE: JOHN D. RAY NUMBER: 11-DB-101 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT This is a disciplinary proceeding based upon formal

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE FLORIDA BAR, Petitioner/Appellant, Supreme Court Case No. SC09-922 v. PETER MARCELLUS CAPUA, Respondent/Appellee. The Florida Bar File No. 2009-71,123(11H-OSC) / THE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 113,970. In the Matter of JARED WARREN HOLSTE, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 113,970. In the Matter of JARED WARREN HOLSTE, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 113,970 In the Matter of JARED WARREN HOLSTE, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed October 9, 2015.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 113,200. In the Matter of LARRY D. EHRLICH, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 113,200. In the Matter of LARRY D. EHRLICH, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 113,200 In the Matter of LARRY D. EHRLICH, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed June 12, 2015.

More information

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JANINNE LATRELL GILBERT NUMBER: 15-DB-002 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT

ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JANINNE LATRELL GILBERT NUMBER: 15-DB-002 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JANINNE LATRELL GILBERT NUMBER: 15-DB-002 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT Louisiamt \llorm~' Disci 1linan Board FILED by:~-~ Docket#

More information

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Supreme Court of Louisiana Supreme Court of Louisiana FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #021 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 1st day of May, 2018, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2017-B-2045

More information

Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated July 29, 2011, it is hereby

Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated July 29, 2011, it is hereby IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 1759 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner. : No. 78 DB 2010 V. : Attorney Registration No. 58783 MARK D. LANCASTER, Respondent

More information

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: DEIDRE KATRINA PETERSON DOCKET NO. 17-DB-066 REPORT OF HEARING COMMITTEE # 08 INTRODUCTION

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: DEIDRE KATRINA PETERSON DOCKET NO. 17-DB-066 REPORT OF HEARING COMMITTEE # 08 INTRODUCTION LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: DEIDRE KATRINA PETERSON DOCKET NO. 17-DB-066 REPORT OF HEARING COMMITTEE # 08 INTRODUCTION This attorney disciplinary matter arises out of formal charges consisting

More information

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE RAMSEY T. MARCELLO NO. 16-DB-064 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE RAMSEY T. MARCELLO NO. 16-DB-064 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 16-DB-064 8/2 /2017 IN RE RAMSEY T. MARCELLO NO. 16-DB-064 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION This readmission matter is based upon an application

More information

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JENNIFER E. GAUBERT NUMBER: 17-DB-041 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JENNIFER E. GAUBERT NUMBER: 17-DB-041 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JENNIFER E. GAUBERT NUMBER: 17-DB-041 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION This is an attorney discipline matter based upon the filing

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO OPINION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO OPINION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: March 14, 2013 Docket No. 33,280 IN THE MATTER OF GENE N. CHAVEZ, ESQUIRE AN ATTORNEY SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW BEFORE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 114,542. In the Matter of BENJAMIN N. CASAD, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 114,542. In the Matter of BENJAMIN N. CASAD, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 114,542 In the Matter of BENJAMIN N. CASAD, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE conditions. Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed June

More information

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JUAN CARLOS LABADIE DOCKET NO. 17-DB-002 INTRODUCTION PROCEDURAL HISTORY

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JUAN CARLOS LABADIE DOCKET NO. 17-DB-002 INTRODUCTION PROCEDURAL HISTORY LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JUAN CARLOS LABADIE DOCKET NO. 17-DB-002 REPORT OF HEARING COMMITTEE # 53 INTRODUCTION This attorney disciplinary matter arises out of formal charges consisting

More information

FILED October 19, 2012

FILED October 19, 2012 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 2012 Term FILED October 19, 2012 No. 35705 OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. JOHN W. ALDERMAN, III, Respondent released at 3:00 p.m.

More information

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD. IN RE: CLAUDE C. LIGHTFOOT, JR. (Bar Roll No.: 17989) DOCKET NO.: IO-DB-057

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD. IN RE: CLAUDE C. LIGHTFOOT, JR. (Bar Roll No.: 17989) DOCKET NO.: IO-DB-057 LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: CLAUDE C. LIGHTFOOT, JR. (Bar Roll No.: 17989) DOCKET NO.: IO-DB-057 RECOMMENDAnONS OF THE HEARING COMMITTEE This matter came before this hearing committee

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) v. The Florida Bar File No ,249(17F) ARTHUR NATHANIEL RAZOR REPORT OF REFEREE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) v. The Florida Bar File No ,249(17F) ARTHUR NATHANIEL RAZOR REPORT OF REFEREE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant Supreme Court Case No. SC06-11 v. The Florida Bar File No. 2004-51,249(17F) ARTHUR NATHANIEL RAZOR Respondent / REPORT OF

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 107,751. In the Matter of DAVID K. LINK, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 107,751. In the Matter of DAVID K. LINK, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 107,751 In the Matter of DAVID K. LINK, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE probation. Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed July 6,

More information

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS People v. Wright, GC98C90. 5/04/99. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge and Hearing Board disbarred respondent for his conduct while under suspension. Six counts in the complaint alleged

More information

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 07-BG A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 07-BG A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 114,829. In the Matter of RICHARD HAITBRINK, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 114,829. In the Matter of RICHARD HAITBRINK, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 114,829 In the Matter of RICHARD HAITBRINK, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed June 3, 2016.

More information

S17Y0531. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID J. FARNHAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and

S17Y0531. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID J. FARNHAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: February 27, 2017 S17Y0531. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID J. FARNHAM. PER CURIAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation of special

More information

Opinion by Presiding Disciplinary Judge Roger L. Keithley and Hearing Board members, Daniel A. Vigil and Mickey W. Smith, both members of the bar.

Opinion by Presiding Disciplinary Judge Roger L. Keithley and Hearing Board members, Daniel A. Vigil and Mickey W. Smith, both members of the bar. People v. Espinoza, No. 99PDJ085, 1/18/01. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge and Hearing Board suspended Pamela Michelle Espinoza from the practice of law for a period of six months

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 117,607. In the Matter of MATTHEW B. WORKS, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 117,607. In the Matter of MATTHEW B. WORKS, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 117,607 In the Matter of MATTHEW B. WORKS, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed November 17, 2017.

More information

) No. SB D RICHARD E. CLARK, ) ) No Respondent. ) ) O P I N I O N REVIEW FROM DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

) No. SB D RICHARD E. CLARK, ) ) No Respondent. ) ) O P I N I O N REVIEW FROM DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION In the Matter of SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc RICHARD E. CLARK, ) Attorney No. 9052 ) ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. SB-03-0113-D ) Disciplinary Commission ) No. 00-1066 Respondent. ) ) O P I N I O

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) v. The Florida Bar File No ,571(15F) ROBERT BRIAN BAKER, REPORT OF REFEREE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) v. The Florida Bar File No ,571(15F) ROBERT BRIAN BAKER, REPORT OF REFEREE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, Supreme Court Case No. SC06-2028 v. The Florida Bar File No. 2005-51,571(15F) ROBERT BRIAN BAKER, Respondent. / REPORT OF

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. No. SC Complainant, The Florida Bar File v. No , 396 (17J) REPORT OF REFEREE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. No. SC Complainant, The Florida Bar File v. No , 396 (17J) REPORT OF REFEREE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE FLORIDA BAR, Supreme Court Case No. SC06-2128 Complainant, The Florida Bar File v. No. 2007-50, 396 (17J) ANDREW ALEXANDER BYER, Respondent. / REPORT OF REFEREE I. SUMMARY

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) THE FLORIDA BAR, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) v. Complainant, Case No. SC07-40 [TFB Case Nos. 2005-11,345(20B); 2006-10,662(20B); 2006-10,965(20B)] KENT ALAN JOHANSON, Respondent.

More information

Timothy J. McNamara appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics. To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of

Timothy J. McNamara appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics. To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. DRB 13-066 District Docket No. XIV-2010-0338E IN THE MATTER OF STEVEN CHARLES FEINSTEIN AN ATTORNEY AT LAW Decision Argued: September 19,

More information

KEARNEY LOUGHLIN, ET AL. NO CA-1285 COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION STATE OF LOUISIANA

KEARNEY LOUGHLIN, ET AL. NO CA-1285 COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION STATE OF LOUISIANA KEARNEY LOUGHLIN, ET AL. VERSUS UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2013-CA-1285 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) REPORT OF REFEREE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) REPORT OF REFEREE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Case No. SC08-1957 [TFB Case No. 2009-30,436(18A)(CFC)] JEFFREY MERRILL LEUKEL, Respondent. / REPORT OF REFEREE I. Summary

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 117,361. In the Matter of LAWRENCE E. SCHNEIDER, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 117,361. In the Matter of LAWRENCE E. SCHNEIDER, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 117,361 In the Matter of LAWRENCE E. SCHNEIDER, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed November 9,

More information

VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD OPINION AND ORDER

VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD OPINION AND ORDER VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: KRISTEN GRIM HUGHES VSB DOCKET NO. 11-052-084557 OPINION AND ORDER This matter came to be heard on March 23, 2012, before a duly convened

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA. September 2014 Term. No LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Petitioner

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA. September 2014 Term. No LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Petitioner IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 2014 Term No. 12-1172 LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Petitioner FILED September 30, 2014 released at 3:00 p.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA. No Filed May 1, 2015 IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA. No Filed May 1, 2015 IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 15 0156 Filed May 1, 2015 IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, Complainant, vs. KENNETH J. WEILAND, JR., Respondent. On review of the report of the Grievance

More information

STATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD. Decision No. 194

STATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD. Decision No. 194 STATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD In Re: Norman R. Blais, Esq. PRB File No. 2015-084 Decision No. 194 Norman R. Blais, Esq., Respondent, is publicly Reprimanded and placed on probation

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 105,257. In the Matter of JAMES M. ROSWOLD, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 105,257. In the Matter of JAMES M. ROSWOLD, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 105,257 In the Matter of JAMES M. ROSWOLD, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed April 22, 2011.

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA **********

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA ********** STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA 12-1360 IN RE: BOBBY HICKMAN ********** APPEAL FROM THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 85745 HONORABLE JOHN C. FORD, DISTRICT

More information

Docket No. 26,646 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2001-NMSC-021, 130 N.M. 627, 29 P.3d 527 August 16, 2001, Filed

Docket No. 26,646 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2001-NMSC-021, 130 N.M. 627, 29 P.3d 527 August 16, 2001, Filed 1 IN RE QUINTANA, 2001-NMSC-021, 130 N.M. 627, 29 P.3d 527 In the Matter of ORLANDO A. QUINTANA, ESQUIRE, An Attorney Licensed to Practice Law Before the Courts of the State of New Mexico Docket No. 26,646

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before A Referee) The Florida Bar File No ,336(15D) FFC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before A Referee) The Florida Bar File No ,336(15D) FFC IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before A Referee) THE FLORIDA BAR, vs. Complainant, Supreme Court Case No. SC06-2411 The Florida Bar File No. 2007-50,336(15D) FFC JOHN ANTHONY GARCIA, Respondent. / APPELLANT/PETITIONER,

More information

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: ARTHUR GILMORE, JR. NUMBER: 18-DB-002 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION

LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: ARTHUR GILMORE, JR. NUMBER: 18-DB-002 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: ARTHUR GILMORE, JR. NUMBER: 18-DB-002 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION This is a readmission proceeding based upon a petition and

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) AMENDED REPORT OF REFEREE (As to Font Type Only)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) AMENDED REPORT OF REFEREE (As to Font Type Only) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Case No. SC10-718 [TFB Case No. 2010-31,202(05A)(OSC)] SUZANNE MARIE HIMES, Respondent. / AMENDED REPORT OF REFEREE (As

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 108,207. In the Matter of CHRISTOPHER Y. MEEK, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 108,207. In the Matter of CHRISTOPHER Y. MEEK, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 108,207 In the Matter of CHRISTOPHER Y. MEEK, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed December 7,

More information

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Nittskoff, 130 Ohio St.3d 433, 2011-Ohio-5758.]

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Nittskoff, 130 Ohio St.3d 433, 2011-Ohio-5758.] [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Nittskoff, 130 Ohio St.3d 433, 2011-Ohio-5758.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. NITTSKOFF. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Nittskoff, 130 Ohio St.3d 433, 2011-Ohio-5758.] Attorneys

More information

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Supreme Court of Louisiana Supreme Court of Louisiana FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #051 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 15th day of October, 2014, are as follows: PER CURIAM:

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. No. SC Complainant, The Florida Bar File v. Nos ,011(17B) AMENDED REPORT OF REFEREE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. No. SC Complainant, The Florida Bar File v. Nos ,011(17B) AMENDED REPORT OF REFEREE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE FLORIDA BAR, Supreme Court Case No. SC08-1210 Complainant, The Florida Bar File v. Nos. 2007-50,011(17B) 2007-51,629(17B) JANE MARIE LETWIN, Respondent. / AMENDED REPORT

More information

Decision. Richard J. Engelhardt appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics. To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of

Decision. Richard J. Engelhardt appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics. To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. DRB 07-026 District Docket No. IV-06-469E IN THE MATTER OF NATHANIEL MARTIN DAVIS AN ATTORNEY AT LAW Decision Argued: March 15, 2007 Decided:

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC11-1865 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. HOWARD MICHAEL SCHEINBERG, Respondent. [June 20, 2013] PER CURIAM. We have for review a referee s report recommending that Respondent

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) THE FLORIDA BAR, v. Complainant, SAMUEL A. MALAT, Case No. SC07-2153 TFB File No. 2008-00,300(2A) Respondent. / REPORT OF THE REFEREE I. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

More information

S17Y1499, S17Y1502, S17Y1623. IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY SYLVESTER KERR. These disciplinary matters are before the court on the reports filed by

S17Y1499, S17Y1502, S17Y1623. IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY SYLVESTER KERR. These disciplinary matters are before the court on the reports filed by In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: September 13, 2017 S17Y1499, S17Y1502, S17Y1623. IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY SYLVESTER KERR. PER CURIAM. These disciplinary matters are before the court on the reports

More information

People v. Bigley. 10PDJ100. May 17, Attorney Regulation. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended Michael F.

People v. Bigley. 10PDJ100. May 17, Attorney Regulation. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended Michael F. People v. Bigley. 10PDJ100. May 17, 2011. Attorney Regulation. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended Michael F. Bigley (Attorney Registration Number 39294) for ninety

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. (Before a Referee) Case No.: SC v. TFB File No.: ,037(07A)(OSC)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. (Before a Referee) Case No.: SC v. TFB File No.: ,037(07A)(OSC) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, Case No.: SC11-1813 v. TFB File No.: 2012-90,037(07A)(OSC) FAYE ESTHER BENNETT, Respondent. / REPORT OF THE REFEREE ACCEPTING

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner. v. : No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner. v. : No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 1859 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner v. : No. 93 DB 2011 KATRINA F. WRIGHT, Respondent : Attorney Registration No. 52233

More information

People v. Tolentino. 11PDJ085, consolidated with 12PDJ028. August 16, Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Gregory

People v. Tolentino. 11PDJ085, consolidated with 12PDJ028. August 16, Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Gregory People v. Tolentino. 11PDJ085, consolidated with 12PDJ028. August 16, 2012. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Gregory S. Tolentino (Attorney Registration Number 40913), effective

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before A Referee) v. The Florida Bar File No ,674(15D)FFC JAMES HARUTUN BATMASIAN, REPORT OF REFEREE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before A Referee) v. The Florida Bar File No ,674(15D)FFC JAMES HARUTUN BATMASIAN, REPORT OF REFEREE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before A Referee) THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, Supreme Court Case No. SC08-1445 v. The Florida Bar File No. 2008-51,674(15D)FFC JAMES HARUTUN BATMASIAN, Respondent. /

More information