These Louisiana lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders or Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommendations made public during the month of June 2014.
Louisiana Supreme Court
- Charles Tanner Phillips, II. The court ordered that the respondent be permanently disbarred. It further ordered that the respondent make restitution to his clients and repay the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Client Assistance Fund any amounts paid to claimants on his behalf. The respondent committed numerous acts of misconduct, including failing to return unearned fees, failing to provide accounting, failing to place disputed fees in trust, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation of twenty-four of the twenty-seven matters at issue.
- Geraldine Broussard Baloney. The court ordered that the petition for consent discipline submitted by petitioner and ODC be accepted, and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for six months, all deferred. The respondent engaged in a conflict of interest between two current clients that led to one client being overcharged for costs, and entered into an aggregate settlement on behalf of the clients without their informed consent.
- Clyde Lain, Jr. The court granted the respondent’s petition for permanent resignation from the practice of law in lieu of discipline. The respondent converted client funds.
- Jennifer Matte. The court ordered that the joint petition by ODC and the petitioner for transfer to active status be granted, subject to the condition that she fully adhere to all terms of her recovery agreement with the Lawyers’ Assistance Program (LAP).
- Margrett Ford. The court found the respondent to be responsible for additional rule violations warranting discipline, which violations shall be considered if she ever seeks readmission. The court also ordered that the respondent make restitution to her former clients. The respondent failed to diligently handle two separate client matters, failed to keep her clients informed of the progress of the matters, and failed to return an unearned fee.
- William F. Kendig, Jr. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline, and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a year and a day, with all but six months deferred. It also ordered that the respondent complete a two-year period of unsupervised probation. The respondent engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with a client.
- Channing J. Warner. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline, and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a year and a day, all deferred. The respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, commingled client funds, and failed to promptly deliver settlement funds to a client.
- John F. Dillon. The court granted a petition for consent discipline, and suspended the respondent for six months, all deferred. The respondent misused his client trust account and allowed the account to become overdrawn on one occasion.
- David A. Capasso. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline, and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a period of eighteen months, all deferred. The respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to promptly refund an unearned fee, and mishandled his client trust account.
- Bridget Brennan Tyrrell. The court accepted a petition for consent discipline, and suspended the respondent for eighteen months. The respondent acknowledged that she practiced law while ineligible to do so and that she failed to cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in its investigation. The dissent asserted that a lesser period of suspension should have been ordered. See Johnson, C.J. (dissenting).
- Chanci Shermaine Shaw. The court ordered that the respondent be permanently disbarred. The court also ordered that the respondent make restitution to her former client. The respondent failed to keep a client informed of the progress of the representation, and failed to inform the client of the full amount for which her case settled. She also failed to cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in the investigation of the matter.
- Cory Scott Morton. The court ordered that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis, pending further orders of the court.
- Ronald Augustin Rossitto. The court ordered that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis, pending further orders of the court.
- Confidential Party. The court ordered that the respondent’s petition for consent discipline be rejected, and ordered that the matter be remanded for consideration of the previously filed formal charges.
- Frank V. Zaccaria, Jr. The court ordered that the respondent be transferred to disability inactive status, and that all disciplinary proceedings against the respondent be deferred until he resumes active status.
Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board
- James Hamilton Dowling, Jr. The board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a year and a day, and it also recommended that the respondent be ordered to refund all unearned fees to his client. The dissent recommended that the respondent be disbarred. While the respondent was ineligible to practice law in Louisiana, he agreed to represent a client, and he received $2,000 in advanced attorney fees. After receiving the fees, the respondent did not follow through on the representation, failed to communicate with the client, and failed to account for or refund the unearned fee.
Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board Hearing Committees
- Richard C. Teissier. Hearing Committee No. 11 recommended a three month suspension, all deferred. It also recommended that the respondent attend eight hours of Law Office Management continuing legal education, two hours of professionalism continuing legal education, and two hours of ethics continuing legal education. The committee also recommended two years of unsupervised probation. The respondent failed to meet his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) responsibilities, and failed to submit his bar dues, disciplinary assessment, and to register his trust account. He also failed to provide his former client’s file to the former client or to his successor counsel, practiced law during a period of ineligibility, and failed to cooperate the the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in its investigation.
- Olita Magee Domingue. Hearing Committee No. 44 recommended that the respondent be reprimanded. It also recommended that the respondent enroll in and complete the LSBA Ethics School, and that he attend eight hours of continuing legal education in the area of law practice management or the maintenance of trust accounts. The respondent commingled client funds.
- Rejohnna Brown-Mitchell. Hearing Committee No. 55 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years. It also recommended that the respondent make full restitution to her clients. The concurrence recommended that the respondent be disbarred. The respondent repeatedly ignored court orders concerning the handling of client funds, and she applied those funds to her own purported legal fees. She also lied to a friend, who was arguably a client, and persuaded the friend to sign a quitclaim deed that conveyed the friend’s interest in a New Orleans home to the respondent. The respondent also failed to provide an accounting for a legal fee she was paid, and she failed to turn over a previous client’s file. Finally, she failed to file annual registrations and to pay certain annual assessments.
- Joyce Nanine McCool. Hearing Committee Committee No. 14 recommended that the respondent be suspended for a period of a year and a day. The respondent used the internet, blog posts, an online petition and social media to spread information, some of which was false, misleading and inflammatory, about two judges presiding over family-law cases in which she was a litigant. Among other things, the Committee found that the respondent solicited members of the public to contact the judges directly to complain about rulings in her cases. The Committee concluded that this conduct violated Rule 3.5 and Rule 8.4 by encouraging ex parte communications “specifically designed to intimidate and to influence the judges’ future rulings in pending litigation.”
Please follow and like us:
