LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JOHNNY S. ANZALONE. 15-DB-004 c/w 15-DB-053 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION
|
|
- Ophelia Snow
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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 of formal charges consisting of a total of two counts filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against Johnny S. Anzalone ("Respondent"), bar roll number ODC alleged that Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct ( Rule(s) ), as follows: 8.4(a)(b) and (d) (violated or attempted to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, engaged in a criminal act, and engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). 2 The hearing committee ( committee ) assigned to the matter 3 concluded that Respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) and (b) and, after reviewing the case law, made the following statement: These cases seem to indicate that a year and a day suspension is warranted in the present case, and that is our recommendation. The Committee went on to state that it believed Respondent would be better served by deferment of the suspension and the imposition of three years probation, contingent upon his execution and completion of an agreement with LAP; that he 1 Respondent was admitted to practice on 04/04/94. He was placed on interim suspension by order of the Court on 05/16/2014. In re Anzalone, (La. 5/16/14); 139 So. 3d RULE 8.4 MISCONDUCT: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; or (b) Commit a criminal act especially one that reflects adversely in on the lawyer s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects... (c) (d) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; 3 Hearing Committee No. 6 was composed of Michael D. Hislop (Chair), Andree B. Leddy (Lawyer Member), and Rebecca K. Broussard (Public Member). 1
2 refrain from criminal activity; and that he remain drug-free. It further recommended that he pay all costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings. For the following reasons, the Board adopts the committee s factual findings and legal conclusions. Relative to sanction, the Board recommends that Respondent be suspended from practice for a year and a day. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Formal charges in 15-DB-004 were filed on February 23, On March 30, 2015, the committee chair issued an order denying Respondent s request for the appointment of a public defender. Respondent answered the formal charges on April 29, At the request of Respondent, the July 29, 2015 hearing was continued without date. A second set of formal charges, 15-DB-053, was filed on October 2, Respondent answered those charges on October 20, The two sets of formal charges were consolidated on October 26, The consolidated matters were scheduled to proceed to hearing on January 6, The hearing was held as scheduled. Deputy Disciplinary Counsel James W. Standley, IV, appeared on behalf of the ODC. Respondent appeared pro se. At the hearing, the committee chair granted Respondent additional time to supplement the record with exhibits, specifically, those related to drug dependency counseling. 4 On February 1, 2016, Respondent submitted a document which purports to be a certification relative to the Respondent s completion of a DWI education session. The ODC objected to the admission of the document as hearsay. On March 17, 2016, the committee chair sustained the objection but allowed the submission of the document as a proffer. The committee s report was issued May 18, ODC filed an objection to the report on May 26, 2015, and filed a pre-argument memorandum on June 10, In its memorandum, the ODC argued, essentially, that the committee s sanction recommendation is unclear. ODC 4 Hearing transcript, pp See also, Hearing Summary Form. 2
3 suggested that if the committee s recommendation was for a fully deferred suspension, then such was too lenient. ODC recommended as appropriate the baseline sanction of a year and a day, with no time deferred. It further recommended that Respondent be required to demonstrate his compliance with Rule XIX, Section 24(E)(3). 5 On July 21, 2016, Charles B. Plattsmier was substituted as counsel for the ODC in this matter. Respondent submitted an Opposition to Disciplinary Counsel s Objection to the Recommendation of Hearing Committee Number 6, on August 15, The matter was initially scheduled for oral argument on August 18, 2016, but was continued to September 29, 2016, at which time the matter was heard by Board Panel C. 6 Mr. Plattsmier appeared for the ODC. Respondent appeared for argument pro se, at which time he stated he had no objection to the committee s report and recommendation. FORMAL CHARGES The formal charges in15-db-004 read, in pertinent part: Respondent herein is Johnny S. Anzalone, an attorney licensed into practice in the State of Louisiana but presently on interim suspension pursuant to Sections 19(B) and 19.2 of the Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XIX. The Louisiana Supreme Court ordered said interim suspension on May 16, On March 17, 2014, following a bench trial, Respondent was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated in violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 14:98. During the course of the criminal proceedings, on or about September of 2013, Respondent was ordered to undergo a drug screening, which indicated positive results for cocaine and methadone. 5 Pursuant to Rule XIX, 24(E), where alcohol or other drug abuse was a causative factor in the lawyer s misconduct, the lawyer shall not be reinstated or readmitted unless: (a) the lawyer has pursued appropriate rehabilitative treatment; (b) the lawyer has abstained from the use of alcohol or other drugs for at least one year; and (c) the lawyer is likely to continue to abstain from alcohol or other drugs. 6 Board Panel C was composed of Melissa L. Theriot (Chair), Laura B. Hennen (Lawyer Member) and R. Lewis Smith, Jr. (Public Member). 3
4 On December 3, 2014, a bench warrant was issued based upon Respondent s failure to appear in court for monitoring. Execution of said warrant ha[d] been stayed until March 10, By testing positive for cocaine and methadone, and by being convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, Respondent has violated the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 8.4(a), (b), and (d). The formal charges in 15-DB-053 read, in pertinent part: On or about June 23, 2015, Respondent entered a guilty plea to a second offense of driving while intoxicated before Judge Thomas M. Yeager for the Ninth Judicial District Court, in and for the Parish of Rapides. This conviction arises from an arrest made on or about March 14, During his arrest, Respondent admitted to the arresting officer that he was under the influence of meth. He was also driving under suspension at that time. By his conduct, Respondent has violated Rule 8.4(a) of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct by violating the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 8.4(b) by committing a criminal act. The committee made the following findings: THE HEARING COMMITTEE REPORT On January 17, 2013, Respondent was arraigned in Tangipahoa Parish on charges of DWI, first offense, and exceeding the speed limit. The trial court continued Respondent's original trial date several times. On September 9, 2013, the trial court ordered Respondent to be tested for drugs, and Respondent tested positive for methadone and cocaine, as reported by Redwood Toxicology Laboratories. On Friday, March 14, 2014, Respondent was arrested in Rapides Parish for DWI, second offense, improper lane usage, and driving under suspension. On Monday, March 17, 2014, Respondent was convicted in Tangipahoa Parish of DWI and exonerated on the charge of exceeding the speed limit. Respondent attempted to appeal his conviction, but, given that his offense was a misdemeanor, his appeal was treated as an application for supervisory writs, which the First Circuit Court of Appeal denied. Respondent entered into a plea agreement in Rapides Parish on June 26, 2015, under which he pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of DWI, first offense, and the State agreed to nolle prosequi the charges of improper lane usage and driving under suspension. Rule 8.4 provides, in pertinent part, "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to... (b) Commit a criminal act especially one that reflects adversely on 4
5 the lawyer's dishonesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." "An attorney's duty to obey and uphold the laws extends to all laws and not merely to those directly connected with his law practice." Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Bensabat, 378 So.2d 380,382 (La.1979). "When the disciplinary proceedings involve an attorney who has been convicted of a crime, the conviction is conclusive evidence of guilt and the sole issue is whether Respondent's crime warrants discipline and, if so, the extent thereof." In re Rome, , p. 9 (La. 9/26/03) 856 So.2d 1167, The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) proved the conviction in Tangipahoa Parish and the nolo contendere plea in Rapides Parish. Respondent offered that in 1986 he was involved in serious automobile accident that resulted in permanent back and neck pain. Respondent experienced difficulties obtaining prescription medications, and in lieu thereof is receiving methadone treatment from Choices of Louisiana, Inc. He maintains that he was "dosed" with cocaine, which resulted in his positive test for that substance. Respondent further contends-and the evidence demonstrates- that Respondent was subject to drug abuse counseling as a result of his nolo contendere plea in Rapides Parish. He further submits that his drug abuse counselor, Mrs. Suzie Drell, found that he was not in need of drug abuse treatment. ODC objected to this testimony and to Respondent's late submission of a letter from Mrs. Drell to the Ninth Judicial District Court. This committee sustained the objection to this hearsay. The committee finds that ODC proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did violate Rule 8.4(a) and (b) in driving while intoxicated related to his Tangipahoa Parish conviction, his positive drug test for cocaine, and his Rapides Parish plea of nolo contendere. Without elaboration, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated in In re Baer, (La. 11/20/09); 21 So.3d 941, that two arrests for DWI support a finding that an attorney violated Rule 8.4(a) and (b). A lawyer- and every other motorist-owes a duty to the public to refrain from operating a vehicle while intoxicated and owes an obligation to the profession to refrain from violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. The violation of this duty was at least negligent, and could lead to grave injury to other motorists or pedestrians. We do note that there was no actual harm in either of Respondent's two incidents. Respondent has substantial experience in to practice of law. We find no dishonest motive, but find that the act of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of a narcotic represents an inherently selfish motive in placing Respondent's convenience above the safety of others. As a mitigating factor, we note that Respondent has no prior disciplinary record. There is no indication that Respondent failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process. Respondent, in the opinion of the committee, suffers from a physical condition that has led to a chemical dependency if not outright addiction. 5
6 In Baer, the attorney was twice arrested for DWI following two accidents that resulted in property damage. The supreme court determined that the appropriate sanction was suspension for a year and a day, retroactive to the date of her interim suspension. In In re Leavoy, (La. 11/1/13); 130 So.2d 291, an attorney who was convicted of one count of DWI, but who also was found too intoxicated to appear in court when scheduled to, and who misled a client as to the status of her case, was suspended for two years, fully deferred, with an order that he execute a five-year agreement with the Lawyers' Assistance Program (LAP). He was placed on probation during the duration of his LAP agreement. In In re Gill, (La. 10/23/15); 181 So.3d 669, an attorney was arrested three times for DWI, once for an alcohol-related disturbance at the Louis Armstrong International Airport, and who attempted to mislead ODC regarding the latter arrest, was suspended for a year and a day. Lastly, in In re James, (La. 3/1113), 108 So.3d 747, an attorney twice convicted of DWI was suspended for a year and a day. These cases seem to indicate that a year-and-a-day suspension is warranted in the present case, and that is our recommendation. However, the committee feels that Respondent would be better served by a deferment of the suspension and imposition of three years' probation, contingent upon: Respondent's execution and completion of an agreement with the LAP; that he refrain from criminal activity; that he remain drug-free; and that he pay the costs and expenses of this matter. 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)(a) states that the Board is to 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. 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 6
7 application of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In re Hill, 90-DB-004, Recommendation of the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board (1/22/92). Here, the committee s findings of fact are supported by the testimony and documentary evidence and are not manifestly erroneous. Further, the committee correctly found that Respondent violated Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a) and (b). The committee did not find a violation of Rule 8.4(d). That Rule provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. There are no allegations or evidence that demonstrates that Respondent violated this provision. The Board adopts these findings. 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. The Louisiana Supreme Court also considers the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions in determining the baseline sanction. In re Quaid, (La. 11/30/94); 646 So.2d 343, 350. By his conduct, Respondent violated duties owed to the public and the profession by failing to maintain the high standards of personal integrity upon which the public relies. When lawyers engage in illegal conduct it serves to undermine the public s confidence in the integrity of officers of the court. Although Respondent s offenses did not result in actual injury to anyone, the potential for injury was great. 7
8 The record supports, and the Board finds, the aggravating factors of substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted in 1994) and selfish motive (driving a vehicle under the influence). 7 The committee noted that there is no indication Respondent failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process. 8 This factor is neither aggravating nor mitigating. Relative to mitigating factors, the record supports the finding of the absence of a prior disciplinary record. 9 The record does not, however, support the committee s finding of the mitigating factor of physical or mental disability or chemical dependency. The committee found that Respondent suffers from a physical condition that has led to a chemical dependency if not outright addiction. The record does not contain the necessary evidence to support this finding as a mitigating factor, so it is rejected by the Board. The Court has held that the mitigating factor of mental disability or chemical dependency is subject to a careful analysis. In re Stoller, (La. 5/24/05); 902 So.2d 981, Respondent has neither asserted, nor has he attempted to prove this mitigating factor. Indeed, Respondent failed to offer any admissible evidence or testimony to support a claim of chemical dependency. Rather, he has argued that he is not in need of treatment. Respondent testified that he was conditionally admitted in 1994 under a two-year LAP contract. 11 He admitted that he later entered a five-year recovery agreement with LAP, which he 7 Hearing transcript, p Hearing Committee Report, p Hearing transcript pp A Respondent asserting the presence of this mitigating factor must prove four factors by clear and convincing evidence as set forth in ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, Standard 9.32(i): 1. there is medical evidence that the Respondent is affected by a chemical dependency or mental disability; 2. the chemical dependency or mental disability caused the misconduct; 3. the Respondent's recovery from the chemical dependency or mental disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation; and 4. the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that misconduct is unlikely. 11 Hearing transcript, p
9 successfully completed. 12 Regarding his positive test for cocaine in connection with the DWI proceeding in Tangipahoa Parish, he denied that he uses cocaine and posits that someone dosed him with the drug. 13 He admitted that he takes methadone every day and is under the care of a doctor (Slocum). According to Respondent, he takes methadone to control his pain. He also testified that attempts are being made to get him into other pain management plans with other doctors. 14 He testified that he has been classified as totally disabled and is covered under Medicaid, which paid for his recent surgery, described as a five-level laminectomy. 15 Nevertheless, the only evidence, other than his testimony, that he attempted to introduce was a document from a qualified substance abuse professional to establish that he is not in need of treatment. He claimed he was referred to this professional as part of his plea agreement in Rapides Parish. 16 B. The ABA Standards and Case Law ABA Standard 5.12 is applicable in determining the appropriate sanction. It provides that [s]uspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in criminal conduct... that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer s fitness to practice. The ABA Standards indicate that suspension is the baseline sanction for the misconduct at issue here. The aggravating and mitigating factors are fairly evenly weighted. A review of prior jurisprudence indicates that the Court has imposed sanctions ranging from fully deferred suspensions to actual periods of suspension in cases involving similar misconduct. For example, in In re Baer, (La. 11/20/2009); 1 So.3d 941, the Court 12 Id., pp , Hearing transcript, pp Id., pp , Id., pp , Hearing transcript, pp
10 suspended Ms. Baer for one year and a day, retroactive to the date of her interim suspension, based on the deemed admitted facts which established that she had twice been arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. The Court noted that, as a general rule, it imposes actual suspensions in cases in which multiple offenses are at issue, as well as in cases in which the offense stems from a substance abuse problem that appears to remain unresolved, both of which were present in the case of Ms. Baer. In In re Guidry, (La. 09/23/11); 71 So.3d 256 the Court suspended a lawyer for one year and a day, no portion deferred, based upon his having twice been arrested and criminally charged, first in Louisiana for DWI, possession of marijuana, and possession of cocaine; and, subsequently, in Illinois for driving under the influence of alcohol, speeding, and improper lane usage. Although Mr. Guidry claimed that he was not currently practicing law and had been clean for three years since completing a residential treatment and pre-trial diversion program, the Court found that he failed to provide any evidence to support his testimony that he had refrained from alcohol. Moreover, the Court observed that Mr. Guidry was not active in AA and did not participate in LAP. In In re James, (La. 1/1/2013); 108 So.3d 747, an attorney entered a plea of nolo contendere to a DWI charge in St. Tammany Parish, and subsequently entered a guilty plea to a DWI charge in Washington Parish. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated and though Mr. James initially agreed to enter into a five-year recovery contract with LAP, he failed to comply with its terms. Because Mr. James was twice convicted of DWI and his substance issues appeared to remain unresolved, the Court imposed a suspension for a year and a day. Based on the cases highlighted above, a recommendation of an actual suspension for one year and one day is appropriate, with no time deferred. Here, as in Baer, Guidry, and James, 10
11 Respondent was twice convicted of DWI. In addition, he tested positive for cocaine. As in Baer, the misconduct at issue here appears to stem from a substance use or abuse problem that remains unresolved. This sanction will require Respondent to clearly and convincingly prove that he is fit to return to the practice of law, if and when he seeks reinstatement. 17 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Board adopts the findings of fact and the conclusions of the hearing committee that the Respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) and (b). Further, the Board finds that suspension for a year and a day, with no time deferred, is the appropriate sanction in this matter. The suspension should be made retroactive to the date of interim suspension. 18 Respondent should pay all costs and expenses of these disciplinary proceedings. 17 Pursuant to Rule XIX, 24(E), where alcohol or other drug abuse was a causative factor in the lawyer s misconduct, the lawyer shall not be reinstated or readmitted unless: (a) the lawyer has pursued appropriate rehabilitative treatment; (b) the lawyer has abstained from the use of alcohol or other drugs for at least one year; and (c) the lawyer is likely to continue to abstain from alcohol or other drugs. 18 See, In re Baer, supra, and In re Blanche, (La. 6/22/12); 90 So.3d
12
13 13
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 informationORIGINAL 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 informationORIGINAL 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 informationLOUISIANA 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 informationLOUISIANA 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 informationORIGINAL 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 informationORIGINAL 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 informationLOUISIANA 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 informationSupreme 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 informationORIGINAL 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 informationLOUISIANA 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 informationLOUISIANA 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 informationLOUISIANA 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 informationLOUISIANA 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 information107 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 informationLOUISIANA 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 informationIN 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 informationLOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: GEORGE ALLEN ROTH WALSH NUMBER: 17-DB-008 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD
LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: GEORGE ALLEN ROTH WALSH NUMBER: 17-DB-008 17-DB-008 6/21/2018 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD INTRODUCTION This is an attorney discipline
More informationORIGINAL 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 informationSUPREME 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 informationORIGINAL 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 informationFILED 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 informationLOUISIANA 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 informationAMERICAN 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 informationORIGINAL 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 informationORIGINAL 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 informationLOUISIANA 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 informationLOUISIANA 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 informationSUPREME 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 informationNO. 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 informationIN 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 informationSUPREME 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 informationORIGINAL 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 informationORIGINAL 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 informationSUPREME 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 informationLOUISIANA 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 informationORIGINAL 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 informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC04-1019 THE FLORIDA BAR Complainant, vs. MARC B. COHEN Respondent. [November 23, 2005] The Florida Bar seeks review of a referee s report recommending a thirtyday
More informationSupreme 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 informationSTATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD. In re: Martha M. Davis PRB File No Decision No Facts
117 PRB [Filed 10/31/08] STATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD In re: Martha M. Davis PRB File No. 2008.065 Decision No. 117 The parties filed a Stipulation of Facts and Joint Recommendations
More informationSUPREME 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 informationPeople v. Bill Condon. 16PDJ050. December 23, 2016.
People v. Bill Condon. 16PDJ050. December 23, 2016. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended Bill Condon (attorney registration number 11924) from the practice of law for
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 114,097. In the Matter of TIMOTHY CLARK MEYER, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 114,097 In the Matter of TIMOTHY CLARK MEYER, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed December 18,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc In re: BYRON G. STEWART, RESPONDENT. No. SC91370 ORIGINAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING Opinion issued June 28, 2011 Attorney Byron Stewart pleaded guilty to his fourth charge
More informationIN 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 informationNO. 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 informationORIGINAL 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 informationSupreme 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) [TFB Nos ,980(07B); v ,684(07B)]
THE FLORIDA BAR, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) Complainant, Case No. SC07-661 [TFB Nos. 2005-30,980(07B); v. 2006-30,684(07B)] CHARLES BEHM, Respondent. / REVISED REPORT OF REFEREE
More informationIN 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 informationFACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Page 1 of 6 THE MISSISSIPPI BAR, v. J. ALLEN DERIVAUX, JR. No. 2012-BA-01330-SCT. Supreme Court of Mississippi. Filed: February 20, 2014. JAMES R. CLARK, ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT. FRANK G. VOLLOR, ATTORNEY
More informationLOUISIANA 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 informationJudgment Rendered September
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2006 CA 2351 ADRIAN SLAUGHTER VERSUS SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY OF LOUISIANA ET AL Judgment Rendered September 14 2007
More informationSUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
People v. Hill, No. 03PDJ001, 06.11.03. Attorney Regulation. The Hearing Board suspended Respondent, Lawrence R. Hill, attorney registration number 17447, for a period of six months all stayed pending
More information) 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 informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN NINA CARMAN DOTSON June 6, 2008
PRESENT: All the Justices COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA v. Record No. 071162 OPINION BY JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN NINA CARMAN DOTSON June 6, 2008 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF BRISTOL Larry B. Kirksey,
More information[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Zapor, 127 Ohio St.3d 372, 2010-Ohio-5769.]
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Zapor, 127 Ohio St.3d 372, 2010-Ohio-5769.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ZAPOR. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Zapor, 127 Ohio St.3d 372, 2010-Ohio-5769.] Attorneys Misconduct
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. Nos. SC01-1403, SC01-2737, SC02-1592, & SC03-210 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. LEE HOWARD GROSS, Respondent. [March 3, 2005] We have for review a referee s report
More informationIN 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 informationIN 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 informationEffective January 1, 2016
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COMMISSION ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA Effective January 1, 2016 SECTION 1: PURPOSE The primary purposes of character and fitness screening before
More informationIN 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[SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) ARE UNCHANGED]
(Filed - April 3, 2008 - Effective August 1, 2008) Rule XI. Disciplinary Proceedings. Section 1. Jurisdiction. [UNCHANGED] Section 2. Grounds for discipline. [SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) ARE UNCHANGED] (c)
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA NO KA-1148 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL DANIEL J. MORALES FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * *
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DANIEL J. MORALES * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2013-KA-1148 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM ST. BERNARD 34TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 373-789, DIVISION
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CW 1386 BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT VERSUS CHARLES OMALLEY
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CW 1386 BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT VERSUS CHARLES OMALLEY On Supervisory Writs to the 19th Judicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana
More informationSTATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD. Decision No. 98
98 PRB [Filed 11-Apr-2007] STATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD In re: Bradney Griffin, Esq. PRB File No 2007.071 Decision No. 98 Respondent is charged with failure to cooperate with disciplinary
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 119,254. In the Matter of JOHN M. KNOX, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 119,254 In the Matter of JOHN M. KNOX, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed January 11, 2019. Disbarment.
More informationSupreme 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. No. SC Complainant, v. The Florida Bar File No ,508(17H) LARRY JAY SAFRON, RESPONDENT S INITIAL BRIEF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE FLORIDA BAR, Supreme Court Case No. SC06-1573 Complainant, v. The Florida Bar File No. 2006-51,508(17H) LARRY JAY SAFRON, Respondent. / RESPONDENT S INITIAL BRIEF KEVIN
More informationIN 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 informationORIGINAL 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 informationGrievance Administrator, Petitioner/Appellee, Harvey J. Zameck, P-22054, Respondent/Appellant, GA; FA. Decided: December 15, 1999
Grievance Administrator, Petitioner/Appellee, v Harvey J. Zameck, P-22054, Respondent/Appellant, 98-114-GA; 93-133-FA Decided: December 15, 1999 BOARD OPINION Respondent, Harvey J. Zameck, petitioned for
More informationSUPREME 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 informationIN 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 103,535. In the Matter of CHARLES T. FRAHM, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 103,535 In the Matter of CHARLES T. FRAHM, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE suspension. Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed November
More informationBEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
In Re: Complaint against BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Case No. 2013-015 %i {.== =='`='^' Rodger William Moore Attorney Reg. No. 0074144 Respondent
More informationSupreme 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 informationLOUISIANA 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 informationIN 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 informationPeople v. David William Beale. 16PDJ066. February 9, 2017.
People v. David William Beale. 16PDJ066. February 9, 2017. After a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred David William Beale (attorney registration number 19097) from the practice
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA REPORT OF REFEREE. I. Summary of Proceedings: Pursuant to the undersigned being duly
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE FLORIDA BAR, v. Complainant, CASE NO.: SC10-862 TFB NO.: 2010-10,855(6A)OSC KEVIN J. HUBBART, Respondent. / REPORT OF REFEREE I. Summary of Proceedings: Pursuant to
More informationIN 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 informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 11-621 ANGELO BRACEY VERSUS CITY OF ALEXANDRIA ********** APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 239,468 HONORABLE HARRY
More informationS17Y1499, 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 informationLAWYERING FOR A LAWYER WITH A DISABILITY BEFORE THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS
LAWYERING FOR A LAWYER WITH A DISABILITY BEFORE THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS By: José R. Guerrero, Jr., Esq. and Bob Bennett The Bennett Law Firm 515 Louisiana, Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77002 T: (713) 225-6000
More informationJason D. Saunders appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics. To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. DRB 16-054 District Docket No. IV-2014-0351E IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT NEIL WILKEY AN ATTORNEY AT LAW Decision Argued: June 16, 2016 Decided:
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING October Term, A.D. 2016 In the Matter of Amendments to ) the Rules Governing the Commission on ) Judicial Conduct and Ethics ) ORDER AMENDING THE RULES GOVERNING
More informationROLES 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 informationCourt Records Glossary
Court Records Glossary Documents Affidavit Answer Appeal Brief Case File Complaint Deposition Docket Indictment Interrogatories Injunction Judgment Opinion Pleadings Praecipe A written or printed statement
More information[Cite as In re Complaint Against Resnick, 107 Ohio St.3d, 2005-Ohio-6800.]
[Cite as In re Complaint Against Resnick, 107 Ohio St.3d, 2005-Ohio-6800.] SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING This opinion is subject to further editing. It has been posted to the website of the Supreme Court
More informationBEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Arizona, having
BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE IN THE MATTER OF A MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR OF ARIZONA, ROBERT C. STANDAGE, Bar No. 021340 Respondent. PDJ-2015-9007 FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER [State Bar File No.
More informationAPPENDIX E ARC DISCIPLINARY POLICY
APPENDIX E ARC DISCIPLINARY POLICY The ("ARC") has developed and administers the Registered Aromatherapist registration program as a means to fulfill its mission of promoting the safe delivery and effective
More informationLOUISIANA 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 informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 96-BG A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia
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 informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: ) ) MICHAEL C. MEISLER, ) Bar Docket No. 414-98 ) Respondent. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL
More informationORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: BYRLYNE JUNE VAN DYKE NUMBER: 10-DB-089
ORIGINAL 10-DB-089 9/9/2013 LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: BYRLYNE JUNE VAN DYKE NUMBER: 10-DB-089 RECOMMENDATION OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD INTRODUCTION This is a disciplinary
More information[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Nicks, 124 Ohio St.3d 460, 2010-Ohio-600.]
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Nicks, 124 Ohio St.3d 460, 2010-Ohio-600.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. NICKS. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Nicks, 124 Ohio St.3d 460, 2010-Ohio-600.] Attorneys at law Misconduct
More informationSupreme 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 informationLOUISIANA 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 informationBefore STEWART, GASKINS and PEATROSS, JJ.
Judgment rendered November 2, 2011. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, LSA-CCP. No. 46,517-CA No. 46,518-CA (Consolidated Cases) COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT
More information