February 2020 Discipline

These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders or Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommendations published during the month of February 2020.

Louisiana Supreme Court

  1. Ronald David Harvey. The court suspended the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent violated Rules 1.4 (a-b), 8.1 (b-c), and 8.4(a). The respondent failed to communicate with a client, failed to disclose his DWI arrest to the Committee on Bar Admissions, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. 
  2. Christopher Lee Sices. The court permanently disbarred the respondent. The respondent engaged in six instances of conversion. The respondent misrepresented his affiliation with another law practice. The respondent received a settlement check for a personal injury case, but failed to pay medical providers after demand for payment. Finally, the respondent failed to complete work on a succession and refused to refund unearned fees. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.5(f)(5), 1.15(d), 1.15(f), 7.10(f), 8.1(b), 8.1(c), 8.4(b), 8.4(c).
  3. Eusi Hekima Phillips. In a 4-3 opinion, the court dismissed the formal charges against the respondent. The respondent had allegedly committed Brady violaitons in an Orleans Parish criminal prosecution.
  4. David Augustus Capasso. The court publicly reprimanded the respondent in response to censures imposed on the respondent by the Grievance Committee of the North Carolina State Bar. The respondent falsely certified that he had not been the subject of any discipline when applying for admission pro hac vice in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The Grievance Committee of the North Carolina State Bar censured respondent for violating Rules 3.3(a), 4.1, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). 
  5. Chris. L Bowman. The court suspended the respondent for one year and one day in response to a joint petition for consent discipline. The ODC opened an investigation into allegations that the respondent was arrested for a DWI. 
  6. Jerry L. Settle. The court revoked the respondent’s probation and suspended the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent violated his probation by failing to timely submit his audit report for the second quarter of 2019, by failing to respond to the ODC’s request for reconciliations on the second trust account, and by failing to properly maintain and promptly disburse client and third-party funds during his probationary period in violation of Rule 1.15. 
  7. Timothy French Upton. The court suspended the respondent on an interim basis pending further orders of the court. The court issued no reasons for so doing. 
  8. Demetrie Elijah Ford. The court suspended the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent practiced law while ineligible to do so. 

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

  1. Darrell K. Hickman. The board recommended that the court suspend the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent handled a divorce matter incompetently, with a lack of diligence, and without properly communicating with his client. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 8.4(a), and 8.4(c). 
  2. Stephen Michael Smith. The board recommended that the court suspend the respondent for one year, with all but 90 days deferred, subject to a one-year probation period. The board also recommended that the court order the respondent to attend the LSBA Ethics School. The respondent shared fees with a nonlawyer and assisted in the unauthorized practice of law. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 5.4(a), 5.5(a), and 8.4(a).
  3. Kemic Alan Smothers. The board recommended that the court suspend the respondent for six months. The respondent violated Rules 1.1(b), 1.1(c), 5.5(a), and 8.4(a). The respondent charged fees for legal services rendered while he was ineligible to practice law.
  4. Raymond Charles Burkart. The board recommended that the court permanently disbar the respondent. The respondent neglected client matters, failed to communicate with his clients, failed to return unearned fees, failed to return client file materials, mishandled his client trust account with no harm to clients, and failed to cooperate with ODC investigations in violation. Additionally, the respondent was arrested for telephone communications harassment. In so doing, the respondent violates Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c). 
  5. Dina Fae Domangue. The board recommended that the court publicly reprimand the respondent subject to the condition that the respondent attend eight hours of continuing legal education training in the area of law office management. In a divorce case, the respondent failed to communicate with the client in person, failed to show up for court dates and meetings, and failed to return client file materials. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.16(d), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).
  6. Tyrone F. Watkins. The board recommended that the court revoke the respondent’s probation. The respondent violated his probation by failing to pay restitution to a client, failing to pay for the cost of the LSBA Ethics School, failing to pay off costs associated with the outstanding amounts owed to the board for costs assessed against him in the disciplinary proceeding, and failing to complete the mandatory continuing education requirements. 

LADB Hearing Committees. 

  1. Myles Julian Johnson. Hearing Committee #25 recommended that the court suspend the respondent for six months. The respondent violated Rules 1.4(a), 1.16(d), and 8.1(b). The respondent failed to promptly update his address with the LSBA, failed to file a motion to withdraw, and failed to respond promptly to communications from the ODC. 
  2. Brad Thomas Andrus. Hearing Committee #19 recommended that the court suspend the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent’s misconduct delayed to repair of a client’s home, cast doubt with a client as to how his settlement funds were spent, and harmed the profession. The respondent violated Rules 1.5(a), 1.15(a), 8.1(a-c), and 8.4(d).  
  3. Denis Collins Swords. Hearing Committee #1 recommended that the court suspend the respondent for one year. The respondent practiced law when ineligible to do so. The respondent violated Rules 1.1(c), 5.5(a), and 8.4(a).
  4. Donald R. Dobbins. Hearing Committee #26 recommended that the court suspend the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent was arrested multiple times for driving while intoxicated, failed to diligently handle client matters, and failed to effectively communicate with clients. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 8.4(a-c). 
  5. Arthur L. Harris, Sr. Hearing Committee #49 recommended that the court permanently disbar the respondent. The respondent neglected client matters, converted client funds, and attempted to collect money after being suspended. In so doing, the respondent violated rules 1.1(c), 1.3, 1.4(b), 1.5(f)(5), 1.16(a)(1), (c), and (d), 5.5(a), 5.5(e)(4), 8.1(b), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a)(c)(d).
  6. Francis C. Broussard. Hearing Committee #3 recommended that the court extend the period in which respondent can apply for readmission from his disbarment by one year and one day. The respondent failed to keep his contact information current, failed to act with reasonable diligence in promptness in representing a client, and failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter. The respondent violated Rules 1.1(c), 1.3, 1.4(a).  
  7. Lynden James Burton. Hearing Committee #19 recommended that the court conditionally readmit the respondent for a period of five years. The respondent was previously suspended for two years in 2019, retroactive to 2017, for failing to file a tax return. 

Please follow and like us: