December 2024 Discipline

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

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. Michelle Andrica Charles. The Court revoked the respondent’s probation and made the deferred portion of her prior nine-month suspension executory due to violations during her probationary period. She failed to pay disciplinary costs and missed her client’s trial, leaving the court waiting. After being absent, Charles was arrested and held in contempt of court for not notifying the court, opposing counsel, or her client. She was sentenced to 22 hours of incarceration. In doing so, she violated Rules 1.1(a), 1.3, 3.4(c), and 8.4(d).
2. Laura J. Johnson. The Court permanently disbarred the respondent. Despite being disbarred in 2015, the respondent continued to practice law in 2022 by representing a client in a contractor fraud case, misleading others by presenting herself as a “retired attorney” and failing to disclose her disbarment. Her actions demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty, misrepresentation, and non-cooperation, compounded by a history of serious professional misconduct, including prior disciplinary actions and falsifying documents. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.16(a)(1), 5.5(a), 8.1(c), 8.4(a)(c) and (d).
3. Vanessa Motta. The Court granted the ODC’s Petition for Interim Suspension for Threat of Harm. The Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law on an interim basis.
4. Trina Trinhthi Chu. The Court disbarred the respondent. The respondent, while employed as a law clerk, intentionally disclosed confidential court documents to a litigant, conducted legal research, and drafted pleadings for the litigant, using court resources despite the judge’s recusal. Her actions, which led to criminal charges and significant disruption to judicial proceedings, violated rules against dishonesty, criminal acts, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, resulting in her disbarment retroactive to her interim suspension in 2020. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.4(a), (b), (c) and (d).
5. Jason F. Giles. The Court granted the ODC’s Petition for Interim Suspension for Threat of Harm. The Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law on an interim basis.
6. Kevin Lovell James. The Court granted the Joint Petition for Transfer to Disability Inactive Status.
7. Sonjia Delcenia Kirk. The Court accepted the Joint Petition for Consent Discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for two years, retroactive to October 6, 2022, the date of her interim suspension. Prior to submitting the joint petition, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent neglected multiple legal matters, failed to timely suit on a client’s behalf, failed to communicate with clients, failed to return client files upon request, failed to refund unearned fees, and failed to pay third-party providers. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(5), 1.15(a)(d), and 1.16(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
8. Cleophus Washington. The Court accepted the Joint Petition for Consent Discipline and suspended the respondent for one year, deferred in its entirety. Prior to submitting the joint petition, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent engaged in criminal conduct.

Louisiana Attorney Discipline Board

1. Kevin Michael Steel. The board recommended that the court permanently disbar the respondent. The respondent neglected client matters, failed to communicate, and retained unearned fees, causing significant delays and harm. The respondent engaged in dishonest practices, including forging a client’s signature, misrepresenting case statuses, and converting approximately $45,000 in client and third-party funds. Additionally, the respondent obstructed the disciplinary process by failing to cooperate with investigations, respond to subpoenas, or provide required documentation, undermining the justice system and violating professional conduct rules. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.5(f)(5), 1.8(a), 1.15(d), 8.1(a), 8.1(c), 8.4(a) and (d).