December 2022 Discipline

These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders or Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommendations published during the month of December 2022.

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. Danminh Quy Mui. The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. The court ordered that all but thirty days of the suspension be deferred. The respondent was arrested for DWI and other alcohol-related offenses. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.1(c) and 8.4(b).
2. Hester R. Gloston Hillard. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, deferred in its entirety. Prior to entering into the consent discipline, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent had neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, and mismanaged her client trust account, resulting in the untimely payment of funds owed to clients and third parties.
3. James Casey Fos. The court granted the petitioners petition for reinstatement to the practice of law on a conditional basis.
4. Richard L. Root. The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for six months, with five months deferred. The respondent filed a lawsuit on behalf of his client using a colleagues Illinois bar number and electronic signature. The colleague was not involved in the preparation of the pleadings, nor did he review the pleadings before they were filed. The colleague did not provide the respondent consent to use his bar number and electronic signature to file the lawsuit in Illinois. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 4.1(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
5. Richmond C. Odom. The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for three years. The respondent served as a trustee of a trust and received a large amount of funds in distributions from the settlor’s retirement accounts. Rather than disburse the funds to the settlor’s children, the respondent commingled and mismanaged the funds. He also transferred the funds to his operating account and permitted his paralegal to manage his trust account. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.15(a) and 5.3.
6. Virgil Maxey Wheeler, III. The court granted a petition for interim suspension filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
7. Terrance A. Prout. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for six months, deferred in its entirety. Prior to entering into the consent discipline, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent had engaged in unauthorized communications with a represented party. In doing so, the respondent admitted that his conduct violated Rules 4.2(a) and 8.4(a).
8. S. Michele Blanchard-Airey. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for six months, fully deferred. Prior to entering into the consent discipline, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent had mishandled her client trust account. The respondent admitted that her conduct violated Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(b), and 1.15(f).

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

1. William A. Roe. The board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent improperly notarized affidavits. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 3.3(a)(3) and 8.4(a), (c), and (d).
2. Clint L. Pierson, Jr. The board recommended that the respondent be disbarred. The respondent engaged in representation involving a conflict of interest by entering into business transactions with clients and failing to comply with the rules. In doing so, the Respondent violated Rules 1.8(a), 2.1, 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).

LADB Hearing Committees

1. Mamie L. Franklin. Hearing Committee # 8 recommended that the court suspend the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent initiated a suit on her client’s behalf and then consciously neglected the suit until the client terminated her representation. The respondent failed to move the case forward for over two and a half years causing substantial harm to the client. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(c), 1.16(d), 3.2, and 8.4(a).
2. Karl J. Koch. Hearing Committee #1 recommended that the court suspend the respondent from the practice of law for one year, fully deferred. The respondent mismanaged his client trust account by utilizing the trust account as his personal operating account. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.15(a), (b), (c), (f), and 8.4(a) and (c).
3. Kenneth M. Plaisance. Hearing Committee # 9 recommended that the court suspend the respondent from the practice of law for two years and one day, with one year deferred. The respondent knowingly represented both a father and a child in litigation despite knowing of a conflict of interest. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.4, 1.7(a), 3.3, 8.4(d).
4. Gregory Swafford. Hearing Committee # 23 recommended that the court suspend the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation and the respondent obtained a loan to purchase and renovate a home. The respondent, however, did not inform the complainant that the property sold, and he did not repay the loan. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.1(b) and (c), and 8.4(a) and (c).
5. Wren’nel M. Gibson. Hearing Committee # 27 recommended that the court suspend the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.1(c).