April 2020 Discipline

These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders or Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommendations published during the month of April 2020.

Louisiana Supreme Court

  1. P. Michael Doherty Breeden, III. The court granted the respondent’s request for permanent resignation in lieu of discipline. The court gave no written reasons for so doing. Interestingly, Justice Crain concurred and noted the following: ” I write to note the allegations against respondent include converting funds from clients and third parties, and respondent’s permanent resignation should not exonerate him from restitution. In these type cases, I encourage the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to negotiate terms of restitution with respondents or to notify victims of their rights, including the right to file suit for civil conversion or malpractice, or to pursue criminal charges.” Justice Crichton joined the concurrence.
  1. Tyrone F. Watkins. The court revoked the respondent’s probation and imposed the previously deferred three-month suspension. The respondent failed to comply with the requirements of his probation agreement. The respondent failed to pay restitution, failed to pay the total amount due for attendance at LSBA Ethics School, failed to fulfill his obligations in connection with the payment of the costs assessed against him in Watkins 1, and failed to complete his 2019 MCLE requirements.
  2. Caleb Kent Aguillard. The court suspended the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent admitted to misusing client trust accounts, neglecting clients’ legal matters, failing to communicate with clients, and failing to refund approximately $15,000 in unearned attorney’s fees to clients. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 3.2, and 8.4(a).
  3. George A. Flournoy. The court suspended the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent directed his secretary to forge signatures on documents and to notarize them. Additionally, the respondent disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 3.4(c), 5.3, 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
Please follow and like us: