These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders or Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommendations published during the month of October 2026.
Louisiana Supreme Court
BURRELL, ALLEN C., JR., 2026-B-01141, 10/21/26. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day, with all but six months deferred, followed by two years of probation. The respondent pleaded no contest to misdemeanor battery of a dating partner after the state charged him with domestic abuse battery. In a separate incident, he pleaded guilty to reckless operation after the state charged him with first offense DWI. In so doing, the respondent violated Rule 8.4(b).
FRANKLIN, MAMIE L., 2026-B-01011, 10/06/26. The court suspended the respondent for two years. The respondent entered her parents’ neighbors’ property without consent, destroyed the stakes a surveyor had set to mark the boundary, and misused the 911 system, and a court convicted her of simple criminal damage to property, criminal trespass, and criminal mischief. She also ignored the disciplinary complaint and failed to appear for a sworn statement after the ODC served her with a subpoena. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 8.1(c) and 8.4(b).
GILL, STEVEN C., 2026-OB-01330, 10/15/26. The court granted the petitioner’s request to abate the waiting period to apply for reinstatement and reinstated him under Supreme Court Rule XVIII. The petitioner may not practice law until the court grants him formal reinstatement under Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24.
HORN, ELIZABETH S., 2026-B-00965, 10/06/26. The court publicly reprimanded the respondent as reciprocal discipline, based on her public reprimand by the Virginia State Bar. The respondent signed discovery responses in a Virginia case stating that her pro hac vice admission was pending, but no one moved for that admission until more than a month later, and she withdrew from the representation before the court heard the motion. In so doing, the respondent violated Virginia Rules 4.1(a) and 5.5(c).
NWOKORIE, ANSELM N., 2026-B-00535, 10/21/26. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day, deferred in its entirety, subject to one year of probation conditioned on his attending Ethics School and performing thirty-two hours of community service. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel had been investigating allegations that the respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with his client, and engaged in dishonest conduct.
RUMAGE, JOSEPH P., JR., 2026-OB-01310, 10/15/26. The court transferred the respondent to disability inactive status on the petition of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. It also permitted the ODC to seek the appointment of a trustee to protect the interests of the respondent’s clients, and it ordered that all filings in the matter remain confidential.
SCHAFER, THOMAS E., III, 2026-OB-01267, 10/07/26. The court transferred the respondent to disability inactive status on the petition of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. It also permitted the ODC to seek the appointment of a trustee to protect the interests of the respondent’s clients, and it ordered that all filings in the matter remain confidential.
LADB Hearing Committees
JOHNSON, GARRON M., 26-DB-003, 10/01/26. Hearing Committee #47 recommended that the court suspend the respondent for three months, with all but fifteen days deferred, followed by one year of probation conditioned on his completing the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Ethics School. The respondent made statements about a judge that he knew to be false, or made with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity, and his conduct prejudiced the administration of justice. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 8.2(a) and 8.4(d).
VALTEAU, FERDINAND F., III, 26-DB-004, 10/01/26. Hearing Committee #47 recommended that the court suspend the respondent for six months, with all but thirty days deferred, followed by one year of probation conditioned on his completing the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Ethics School. The respondent made statements about a judge that he knew to be false, or made with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity, and his conduct prejudiced the administration of justice. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 8.2(a) and 8.4(d).
