April 2024 Discipline

Posted on by

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

Louisiana Supreme Court

  1. Sonya Eloyance Hall. The Court suspended the respondent for a period of six months. The Court ordered the suspension to run consecutively to the suspension imposed in a prior discipline matter. The respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, improperly terminated a representation, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(c), 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.1(c), 8.4(a).
  2. Aaron P. Mollere. The Court disbarred the respondent. The respondent failed to provide competent representation, neglected a legal matter, failed to refund unearned fees or otherwise deposit the fees into his trust account, failed to protect his client’s interests after being terminated as counsel, converted settlement funds owed to a client, engaged in serious criminal conduct, converted substantial funds from his parents to fuel his drug use, and failed to cooperate with the ODC’s investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(5), 1.16(d), 1.15(a), 1.15(d), 3.2, 8.1(b), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
  3. Gregory James Sauzer. The Court suspended the respondent for six months, with all but 30 days of the suspension deferred. The respondent willfully failed to file four years of federal income tax returns. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c).
  4. Dedrick Arvell Moore. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day, with the entirety of the suspension deferred. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent neglected two of a client’s legal matters, failed to communicate with the client, failed to reduce a contingency fee agreement to writing, failed to deposit the client’s settlement check into his client trust account, and failed to disburse $1,500 owed to the client.
  5. Erica Marchand. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, and practiced law while ineligible to do so.
  6. Dennis E. Kelly. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent mishandled his client trust account.
  7. Gregory Swafford. The Court denied the respondent’s application for rehearing.
  8. Ravinder P. Khinda. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. The respondent failed to reply to a disciplinary complaint filed against him with the ODC and failed to appear for a sworn statement. In doing so, the respondent violated Rule 8.1(c).
  9. David R. Opperman. The Court permanently disbarred the respondent. The respondent was convicted of two sexual offenses involving juveniles. This conduct occurred while the respondent was serving as an assistant district attorney. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.1(a) and 8.4(b).
  10. Kevin Michael Steel. The Court granted the petitioner’s petition for transfer to active status. The Court then suspended the respondent from the practice of law on an interim basis.
  11. Irvin Joseph Celestine, Jr. The Court suspended the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent failed to fulfill his professional obligations, failed to communicate with clients, neglected legal matters, failed to expedite litigation, caused the unnecessary delay and use of court resources in a proceeding, failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations, and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(c), 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(b), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).
  12. George Allen Roth Walsh. The Court denied the application for rehearing.

Louisiana Attorney Discipline Board

  1. Trina Trinhthi Chu. The board recommended that the respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law. The respondent, who was an employee of a court of appeals, intentionally disclosed documents involving confidential judicial deliberations to a litigant who had two matters pending before the court. In doing so, the respondent violated rules 3.5(a), 3.5(d), 8.4(a), (b), (c), and (d).
  2. Ned Franklin Pierce Sonnier, Sr. The board recommended that the respondent be disbarred. The respondent closed and locked his office door, packed up his belongings and abandoned his law practice. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f), 1.16(d), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
  3. Michael S. Brandner, Jr. The board dismissed the formal charges filed against the respondent.

LADB Hearing Committees.

  1. William M. Magee. Hearing Committee #25 recommended that the petitioner be reinstated to the practice of law.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet