April 2015 Discipline

These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders or Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommendations that were made public during the month of April 2015.

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. Tiffany Ann Peters. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and disbarred the respondent. The respondent acknowledged that her conduct, which involved misappropriating funds from a law firm at which she worked, violated Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c).
2. Wayne M. Leblanc. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. The respondent acknowledged that he filed frivolous and harassing pleadings and appeals.
3. Diedre Pierce Kelly. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent acknowledged that she acted without her employer’s knowledge and consent when she signed her employer’s name as notary to several documents in her application for admission to the Louisiana State Bar Association.
4. David H. Alfortish. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year, with all but three months deferred. ODC was investigating allegations that respondent improperly notarized an act of sale of real estate, causing actual harm.
5. Peggy M. Hairston Robinson. The court denied respondent’s motion for dissolution of an interim suspension pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX.
6. Andrew N. Lee. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, with all but ninety days deferred. ODC was investigating allegations that respondent practiced law while ineligible to do so and failed to place an advance fee into his client trust account until earned.
7. Lynn Plaisance Johnson. The court considered the Petition to Initiate Reciprocal Discipline Proceedings filed by the ODC, and ordered that the respondent be publicly reprimanded. Respondent was reprimanded by the Supreme Court of Missouri for knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority.
8. Keri Glenn Armstrong. The court ordered that the respondent be disbarred. The respondent failed to return an unearned fee to a client, converted a client’s funds, neglected a client’s legal matter, and failed to cooperate with the ODC.
9.  Patrick McMath. The court revoked respondent’s conditional admission to the practice of law.
10. Itzchak E. Kornfeld. The court ordered that the respondent be immediately reinstated to the practice of law in Louisiana.

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

1. Melvin N. Cade.  The board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day with six months deferred, subject to a two-year period of unsupervised probation. The board found that the respondent knowingly violated his duty to his client by refusing to communicate with her and by failing to diligently pursue her legal matter.

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board Hearing Committees

1. Keisha M. Jones-Joseph. Hearing Committee No. 37 recommended that the respondent be disbarred for neglecting two separate client matters, failing to communicate with her clients, failing to return an unearned fee, and failing to cooperate with the ODC.
2. Roy Joseph Richard, Jr. Hearing Committee No. 5 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent failed to maintain complete records of his IOLTA account funds and failed to respond to the ODC.
3. Elise Marybeth Lamartina. Hearing Committee No. 62 found that the respondent did not violate Rule 5.5 regarding the unauthorized practice of law. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law in 2012 and remains suspended. She was charged with violating Rule 5.5 for filing an answer on behalf of her own LLC, but the hearing committee determined that La. R.S. 37:212(C) allowed her to do so.
4. Randall J. Cashio. Hearing Committee No. 39 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year, all deferred, subject to a six month period of unsupervised probation. The respondent violated Rule 3.1 regarding meritorious claims and contentions by bringing a defamation claim against the person who filed a disciplinary complaint against him.
5. Walter Dumas. Hearing Committee No. 14 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year, six months deferred, subject to a tw0-year period of supervised probation. The respondent converted client funds, mismanaged client trust accounts, and failed to keep complete records of account funds.