February 2016 Discipline

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 February 2016.

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. Walter C. Dumas. The Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law on an interim basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19.2.
2. Michael P. Arata. The Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law on an interim basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19.
3. Christine M. Mire. The Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, with all but six months deferred. The respondent made allegations of corruption against the presiding judge in a case she was handling, burdened the bankruptcy court and the district court with numerous appeals, and delayed resolving her client’s bankruptcy case. She also failed timely to remit funds as ordered by the bankruptcy court, and she violated the bankruptcy court’s explicit order to disgorge funds. Justice Weimer (joined by Justice Hughes) dissented, finding that there was “objective supporting evidence” for the respondent’s criticisms of the presiding judge. Justice Hughes went further, finding that the respondent should not be sanctioned because she acted as a “whistle-blower” in revealing that the trial judge had altered “the transcript of a recorded judicial proceeding.” Justice Guidry dissented from the sanction imposed, stating that he would have imposed a shorter period of suspension.
4. Naveen Kailas. The Court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline, and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a period of three years.
5. Ronald S. Haley, Jr. The Court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline, and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. ODC had commenced an investigation into respondent’s arrests for driving while intoxicated.

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

1. Elise Marybeth Lamartina. The Board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for ninety days for filing court papers while under suspension. Unlike the Hearing Committee, the Board found that the respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board Hearing Committees

1. Francis C. Broussard. Hearing Committee No. 3 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years. Respondent pled guilty in United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to filing false, fictitious, or fraudulent tax claims.
2. John Arthur Brittain. Hearing Committee No. 41 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years. Respondent committed multiple violations of the rules of professional conduct, including failing to distribute settlement funds, failing to communicate with clients regarding their legal matters, and failing to cooperate with ODC in its investigations.
3. Randal Alandre Toaston. Hearing Committee No. 15 recommended that the respondent be disbarred. ODC’s formal charges against the respondent consisted of twenty-six counts. Among other violations, respondent failed to diligently represent clients, converted client funds, and failed to cooperate with ODC in its investigations.
4. Vincent J. DeSalvo. Hearing Committee No. 29 recommended that the respondent be publicly reprimanded. Respondent disbursed client funds prior to ensuring that the settlement funds had been credited to his IOLTA account.  As a mitigating factor, the Committee noted that his clients suffered no harm from his actions.
5. Joseph Christopher Miciotta. The Hearing Committee recommended a suspension of a year and a day, fully deferred. Respondent converted client funds. As a mitigating factor, respondent successfully participated in LAP.