These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders or Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommendations that were made public during the month of August 2017.
Louisiana Supreme Court
- Andres H. Aguilar. The court suspended the respondent on an interim basis, pending further orders from the court.
- Michael L. Cave. The court suspended the respondent on an interim basis, pending further orders from the court.
Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board
- Michael J. Cutshaw. The board recommended that the petitioner’s application for reinstatement be denied. The board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient reason why he should be reinstated after substance-abuse treatment, which did not coincide with JLAP.
- Ramsey T. Marcello. The board recommended that petitioner’s petition for readmission be denied. The board found that the petitioner did not meet the criteria for readmission and failed to establish sufficient reasons for readmission. Petitioner was conditionally admitted to the practice due to previous misconduct, including a D.W.I. charge. Petitioner violated the terms of this conditional admission.
- Wayne E. Garrett. The board recommended that the responded be suspended. The respondent failed to withhold funds from a settlement proceeding, and committed other misconduct, which was detailed in an audit report.
- Joseph G. Pastorek, II. The board recommended that the respondent be permanently disbarred. The respondent is a physician who was convicted in federal court with unlawfully dispensing Schedule II and Schedule III controlled substances.
- Kenneth M. Waguespack. The board recommended that the respondent be permanently disbarred, and that he be ordered to make restitution to his harmed clients. The respondent failed to produce documentation, failed to respond as instructed, and failed to respond to an ethical complaint.
LADB Hearing Committees
- Thomas J. Hogan. Hearing Committee #26 recommended the dismissal of the formal charges lodged against the respondent because it found that the ODC did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent violated any Rules of Professional Conduct. ODC accused the respondent of making a false statement to a tribunal, failing to disclose legal authority adverse to his position, and bringing an issue without a basis of law.
- Jose W. Vega. Hearing Committee #62 recommended a one-year-and-one-day suspension of respondent to run concurrent with his ongoing disbarment. The respondent failed to appear at a hearing adequately prepared, and thus failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. He also failed to keep his client reasonably informed, and failed to cooperated with the ODC.
- Michael S. Reid. Hearing Committee #22 recommended the permanent disbarment of the respondent. The respondent committed nine counts of misconduct.