March 2016 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 March 2016.

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. Sondra Allen-Borne. The Court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline, and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, all but sixty days deferred. ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent failed to provide competent representation to a client, neglected a legal matter and caused the client’s claim to prescribe, and failed to inform the client that her claim had prescribed.
2. Robert A. Booth, Jr. The Court ordered that the respondent be conditionally reinstated to the practice of law, subject to a two-year period of supervised probation. During the period of probation, petitioner may not operate a solo law practice, and he must be a salaried employee of a law firm. Blog post here.
3. Charles Marvin Bradshaw, II. The Court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline, and publicly reprimanded the respondent. ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent had neglected a legal matter and failed to communicate with a client.
4. Jalila J. Bullock. The Court ordered that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a year and a day, six months deferred. The respondent failed to communicate adequately with a client after the client’s case prescribed, attempted to conceal her malpractice from the client, and failed to act diligently by allowing the client’s claim to prescribe in the first place.
5. Willie M. Zanders. The Court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline, and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, all but sixty days deferred. ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent neglected a legal matter, resulting in the prescription of the client’s claim, and failed to inform the client that her claim had prescribed.
6. Yolanda Julie King. The Court ordered that the respondent, a former Orleans Parish Juvenile Court judge, be suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19. Former judge King was removed from the bench, and later convicted of a felony, in connection with filing false domicile documents. Blog post here.
7. Carla Ann Brown-Manning. The Court ordered that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent failed to diligently represent clients, failed to return unearned fees and client files, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. The respondent also neglected to complete a succession matter, and failed to file for an expungement (which compromised her client’s employment prospects). Further, she made no attempt to refund the fees that she was paid.
8. Janinne Latrell Gilbert. The Court ordered that the respondent be disbarred. The respondent neglected client matters and converted client funds.
9. Katherine M. Guste. The Court ordered that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years. The respondent failed to finalize work that she was hired to handle, and she failed to return unearned fees, court costs, and her client’s file. She also failed to provide an accounting of the hours that she claims to have worked on behalf of the client.
10. Ashton Devan Pardue. The Court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline, and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for three months. ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent was arrested on charges of operating a vessel while intoxicated, and flight from an officer. The respondent had pleaded no contest to careless operation and flight from an officer.
11. Richard A. Schwartz. The Court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline, and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for thirty months. ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol on three separate occasions.

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

1. Patrick Edgerton Henry.The Board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for nine months, all but sixty days deferred. Respondent told a client that he would represent him pro bono, but then respondent billed his firm for the hours he worked on the client’s matter.
2. Edward Bissau Mendy. The Board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years. Respondent neglected client matters and failed to cooperate with ODC in its investigation.
3. E. Eric Guirard. The Board recommended that the respondent’s petition for readmission be denied. The Board found that the respondent failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he recognized the wrongfulness and seriousness of his previous misconduct. Respondent was previously disbarred for failure to supervise nonlawyer staff, impermissible fee sharing with nonlawyers, and facilitation of the unauthorized practice of law.
4. Kerry Dion Brown. The Board recommended that the respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law. The respondent failed to communicate with his clients, settled claims without their knowledge, converted client funds for his own use, failed to pay third party providers for services rendered to his clients, and failed to return unearned fees to clients.
5. Louis Jerome Stanley. The Board recommended that the respondent be publicly reprimanded. The respondent failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the receipt and distribution of proceeds from her lawsuit. Moreover, he failed to comply with reasonable requests for information, and he did not promptly deliver to the client funds that she was entitled to receive.

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board Hearing Committees

1. N. Dawn Harper. Hearing Committee No. 3 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a year and a day. Respondent accepted fees from clients and then abandoned her law practice without bringing the matters to conclusion or returning the unearned fees. Respondent also failed to cooperate with ODC in its investigation.
2. Murray Salinas. Hearing Committee No. 17 recommended that the respondent be disbarred. Respondent failed to return unearned fees after being discharged, and failed to cooperate with ODC in its investigation.
3. Anthony Hollis. Hearing Committee No. 60 recommended that the respondent be disbarred. The respondent, who had previously been disbarred for unrelated matters, neglected a client matter and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation.
4. William Francis Henderson. Hearing Committee No. 22 recommended that the respondent not be reinstated to the practice of law. The hearing committee did not find that respondent possesses the requisite honesty and integrity to continue the practice law.