February 2024 Discipline

These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders of Louisiana Attorney Discipline Board recommendations published during the month of January 2024.

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. Brian Allen Miller. The Court granted the ODC’s petition for interim suspension and suspended the respondent from the practice of law on an interim basis.
2. Robert James Lounsberry, Sr. The Court granted the ODC’s petition for interim suspension and suspended the respondent from the practice of law on an interim basis.
3. Tara Elwell. The Court granted the ODC’s motion to extend the term of the respondent’s probation and revised the conditions of probation to require that the respondent and the ODC participate in fee arbitration with a third-party arbitration service.
4. James Arthur Graham, Jr. The Court imposed reciprocal discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. The respondent represented to the public in Tennessee that he was licensed to practice in Tennessee when he was not. This was a false statement that resulted in potential harm to the public. In doing so, the respondent violated Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
5. Kenneth M. Plaisance. The Court suspended the respondent for two years and one day, with one year deferred. The respondent did not adequately explain a conflict of interest to his clients and he inappropriately obtained a waiver of the conflict. The respondent also attempted to obtain a fee he was barred from receiving because of the conflict and filed frivolous pleadings, all of which delayed the parties receipt of their settlement funds for months. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.4, 1.7(a), 3.1, and 8.4(d).
6. Gregory Swafford. The Court suspended the respondent for one year and one day. The Court further ordered the respondent to pay restitution in the amount of $50,000. The respondent entered into a joint venture agreement for the renovation of property, received $50,000 from an investor, failed to inform the investor that he sold the property, failed to repay the investor the amount of her investment, and failed to pay the investor a profit in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The respondent also failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, Rules 1.4, 1.7(a), 3.1, and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.1(b), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).
7. Stavros Panagoulopoulos. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for six months, with all but 90 days deferred. Prior to accepting the consent discipline petition, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent failed to comply with attorney advertising rules. The respondent also failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of two disciplinary complaints. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 7.2(a)(3), 8.1(b), and 8.1(c).
8. George Knox. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, retroactive to December 21, 2023, the date of his interim suspension. The respondent had engaged in the practice of law while ineligible to do so and the respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation.
9. Sophia Juliana John. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year, retroactive to October 12, 2023, the date of her interim suspension. Prior to entering into the consent discipline agreement, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent falsified an email to cover up her failure to timely disclose her clients’ expert witnesses and made false statements in pleadings filed in federal court.
10. Grant Patrick Gardiner. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for six months. The ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, engaged in dishonest conduct, and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
11. Jeremy Zivko Soso. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. The ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent failed to communicate with two clients, failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation, failed to timely provide a client’s file upon request, and failed to obtain his client’s written consent to include co-counsel in a contingency fee agreement. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.4, 1.16(d), 3.2, and 8.4(a).
12. Michelle Myer Bennett. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for a period of one year and one day, with all but three months of the suspension deferred. The ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent mismanaged her client trust account and engaged in an intimate relationship with a client. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.7, 1.15, and 8.4(a).
13. Jamar Brooks Akai-Myers-Montgomery. The Court denied the petitioner’s petition for readmission.
14. Dan L. Donald, Jr. The Court granted the petition for voluntary resignation from the practice of law.
15. Richard Forrest White. The Court adjudged the respondent guilty of additional rule violations warranting discipline, which shall be considered in the event that he seeks readmission after becoming eligible to do so. The respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with his client, failed to return the client’s file, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).
16. Peter A. Ryan. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day, with all but six months of the suspension deferred. The ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, and failed to properly terminate representations.

Louisiana Attorney Discipline Board

1. Irvin Joseph Celestine, Jr. The board recommended that the respondent be suspended for one year and one day. The respondent neglected his duties to his client, he failed to stay in touch with the client, and he settled the clients case without the knowledge or consent of the client. The respondent also failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(c), 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 3.2, 8.1(b), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d).
2. Charles Edward Brumfield, Jr. The board recommended that the respondent be publicly reprimanded. The respondent sought damages for claims that he knew were waived and released. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
3. Adam Young. The board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day, with all but 90 days of the suspension deferred. The respondent received funds from his client without a structure plan for repayment over several years. Despite that the respondent knew, or should have known, of the conflict of interest that arose when he accepted the loans, he failed to disclose in writing the possible effect of the conflict, caused injury to the client, and entered into a business transaction with the client. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.8(a) and 8.4(a).
4. Timothy A. Meche. The board recommended that the respondent be suspended for two years. The respondent engaged in driving while intoxicated on several occasions. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(a).

LADB Hearing Committees.

1. Jason Asbill. Hearing Committee #10 recommended that the formal charges be dismissed.
2. Ronald Sidney Haley, Jr. Hearing Committee #2 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months. The respondent knowingly advised a former client about how to act before the judge presiding over the former client’s case while the respondent was suspended from practice. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 5.5(a) and 8.4(a).

Please follow and like us: