These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders of Louisiana Attorney Discipline Board recommendations published during the month of April 2025.
Louisiana Supreme Court
- Jamar Akai Brooks Myers-Montgomery. The court denied the petition for readmission.
- Kelly Rae Englert. The Court revoked the respondent’s probation and imposed the one year and one day suspension previously order by the court. The respondent violated the conditions of her disciplinary probation by consuming alcohol contrary to her JLAP agreement and then voluntarily withdrawing from the JLAP monitoring program that was required as a condition of her probation.
- Donald R. Dobbins. The Court remanded the matter to the disciplinary board for further consideration of the petition for reinstatement.
- Ronald S. Haley, Jr. The Court granted the petition for interim suspension for threat of harm.
- Timothy Mathison. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for a period of ninety days, deferred in its entirety. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent failed to witness the signing of a document he notarized, where the document contained a forged signature and was filed into the public record. Respondent and the ODC then submitted a joint petition for consent discipline in which respondent admitted that his conduct violated Rules 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
- Willie G. Johnson, III. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year, fully deferred. Prior to entering into the consent agreement, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent engaged in a concurrent conflict of interest.
- Paul H. Hattaway. The Court suspended the respondent for sixty days, deferred in its entirety, The respondent neglected his client’s fair housing discrimination case by failing to timely file an answer, respond to discovery, file oppositions to motions, and communicate negative case developments to his client, while continuing to represent the client despite being ineligible to practice law, resulting in an $89,991.80 judgment against his client. In doing so, he violated Rule 1.1(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(a), 1.16(d), 3.2, 5.5(a)(e)(3), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
- John Michael Mezaraups. The Court granted the petition for transfer to disability inactive status.
- Clayton Paul Schnyder, Jr. The Court suspended the respondent for a period of three years. The respondent, a lawyer with a significant prior disciplinary history, misused his client trust account by writing checks to himself for personal expenses ($3,000 for “entertainment” and $3,000 for home renovations) and completely failed to respond to or cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation despite numerous contact attempts through multiple channels. In doing so, he violated Rules 1.1(c), 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 8.1(b), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).
- Carl V. Williams. The Court suspended the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent who has a significant prior disciplinary history, failed to notify heir Alvin Banks, Jr. about his $7,514.11 share from a 2017 property sale in a succession matter, subsequently transferred these funds from his client trust account to his personal account in 2020, and only paid the client $9,090.48 (including interest) in March 2022 after a disciplinary complaint was filed. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(a), 1.15(d), and 8.4(c).
- Drew M. Louviere. The Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent accepted $15,000 from the family of a convicted murderer to handle sentencing and appeals, but neglected the case by filing only a few short motions, failing to perfect an appeal despite being granted one, never obtaining promised transcripts, failing to respond to numerous update requests, and refusing to terminate the representation or return any portion of the unearned fee. In doing so, the respondent violated Rule 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f), 3.2, 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).
- Timothy A. Meche. The Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a period of sixty days, deferred in its entirety. The respondent who was already suspended from practice for prior DWI incidents, knowingly failed to cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in two separate investigations by ignoring correspondence, avoiding service of subpoenas despite being aware of the attempts to serve him, and failing to respond to disciplinary complaints despite acknowledging receipt of the notices. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.1(c), 8.4(a) and 8.4(d).
- Russell S. Stegeman. The Court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for a period of six months, deferred in its entirety. Prior to entering into a consent agreement, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent neglected legal matters, improperly terminated two representations, knowingly disobeyed obligations under the rules of a tribunal, and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
- James S. Burland. The Court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline and disbarred the respondent. The respondent pleaded guilty to felony possession of child pornography. In doing so, the respondent violated Rule 8.4(b).
Please follow and like us:
