December 2021 Discipline

These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders or Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommendations published during the month of December 2021.

Louisiana Supreme Court

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is la-state-seal-300x150.png
  1. Lolita M. Whitmore. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year, deferred in its entirety. The respondent neglected a legal matter and failed to communicate with a client. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3 and 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
  2. Aaron Paul Mollere. The court granted a joint petition for interim suspension. It gave no reasons for doing so.
  3. Ronald Sidney Haley, Jr. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day, with all but six months of the suspension deferred. The respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, inappropriately attempted to settle a malpractice claim with a client, and failed to return a client’s file upon request. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.8, 1.16, 8.4(a), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
  4. Samuel Robert Aucoin. The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent practiced law while ineligible due to his failure to comply with his MCLE requirements of 2018. Additionally, the respondent provided the LSBA with an altered certificate of completion for a CLE course. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 5.5(a), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.1(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
  5. Devonna M. Ponthieu. The court suspended the respondent for nine months, with all but six months of the suspension deferred. The respondent, at her client’s insistence, conveyed a $100,000 settlement offer to opposing counsel in exchange for which the client indicated that she would not appear at the opposing party’s criminal trial. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
  6. Dwan S. Hilferty. The court suspended the respondent for one year and one day, with six months of the suspension deferred. The respondent neglected two legal matters and failed to communicate with her clients over the course of approximately two decades. The respondent also failed to fully cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the two disciplinary complaints. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
  7. Robert M. Waterwall. The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent practiced law while ineligible to do so and abandoned his law practice and clients and files. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(c), 5.5, 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
  8. Elizabeth H. Icamina. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for three years, with eighteen months deferred. The respondent mismanaged her client trust account, resulting in commingling and conversion. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.15(a)(d)(f), 5.3, 8.4(a), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
  9. Sonya Eloyace Hall. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day, with all but thirty days of the suspension deferred. The respondent mismanaged her client trust account and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.15 and 8.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is ladb-seal-300x150.png
  1. Michelle Andrica Charles. The board recommended that the court suspend the respondent from the practice of law for nine months, with six months deferred. As to count one, the respondent, a former candidate for judge, filed a Notice of Candidacy swearing that she had filed her state and federal tax returns for each of the previous five years, when in fact she had failed to file a state return for 2015. When her candidacy was challenged, Respondent testified in court that she had filed her tax return, although she could produce no supporting evidence– even when the Court gave her additional time to do so. As to count two, the respondent agreed to file an objection to the hearing officer’s recommendation in a matter, failed to file the objection she said she was going to file, and following the client’s inquiry, she failed to confirm the filing with either her secretary or with the clerk of court. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 3.3(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).

LADB Hearing Committees

  1. Michael Treaman Bell. Hearing Committee #27 recommended that the court extended the respondent’s eligibility to apply for readmission for a period of not less than five years. The respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by attending a hearing after his disbarment. The respondent also failed to exercise reasonable diligence in a matter, failed to communicate, and falsely led his client to believe that he would be able to secure a temporary driver’s license for him. Finally, the respondent failed to patriciate in the ODC’s investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 5.5(a), 8.1(c), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
  2. William A. Roe. Hearing Committee #8 recommended that the court suspend the respondent for a period of one year. The respondent submitted false evidence that affidavits were sworn to and signed in his presence. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 3.3(a)(3), 8.4(a), 8.4(c). and 8.4(d).
  3. Wren’nel M. Gibson. Hearing Committee #29 recommended that the court disbar the respondent. The respondent failed to competently represent a client, failed to act with reasonable diligence, failed to communicate with the client about difficulties involving the purported conversion of client funds by her employee or to even inform the client that the funds had been taken, failed to properly supervise her employee resulting in conversion of $19,000 in client funds, failed to promptly pay third-party providers of medical services, failed to return the client’s file, and failed to cooperate in the ODC’s investigation of her client’s complaint. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(a)(b)(d)(e), 1.16(d), 5.3, 8.1(b)(c), and 8.4.
  4. Clint Pierson, Jr. Hearing Committee $15 recommended that the court disbar the respondent. The respondent entered into business transactions with a client without fully disclosing the terms so as to be reasonably understood by the client. Further, the respondent did not advise the client of the desirability of securing independent counsel. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.8(a), 2.1, 8.4(a) and (c).
  5. Richard C. Oustalet, Jr. Hearing Committee #31 recommended that the court grant the petitioner’s application for readmission. The committee further recommended that the petitioner be readmitted with the conditions that he be placed on probation, work with a mentor via the LSBA’s mentorship program, and should limit his practice to serving as in-house counsel for his family business.
  6. William Francis Henderson. Hearing Committee #36 recommended that the court readmit the petitioner to the practice of law. The committee further recommended that the petitioner be appointed a monitor to audit his practice to ensure that he engages in sound practices when handling client funds.
  7. Michael P. Arata. Hearing Committee #9 recommended that the court readmit the petitioner to the practice of law.
  8. Janeane Gorcyca Abbot. Hearing Commitee #25 recommended that the court suspend the respondent for sixty days. The respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, failed to communicate with a client, failed to advise her client that an objection to a ruling was neither timely fax-filed, that the original was never filed, and that the client had a potential malpractice claim for which she should seek independent counsel for an evaluation of that claim, failed to expedite litigation, knowingly made a false statement of material fact or failed to correct a misapprehension in connection with the disciplinary matter. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 3.2, 8.1, 8.4(a), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Please follow and like us: