January 2016 Discipline

Louisiana State SealThese lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders or Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommendations that were made public during the month of January 2016.

Louisiana Supreme Court

  1. J. Michael Cutshaw. The Court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline, and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a period of thirty months, retroactive to February 20, 2013.
  2. Jade R. Blasingame. The Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law on an interim basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19.3.
  3. Alton Bates, II. 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, all deferred. ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, mishandled his client trust account, and notarized an affidavit outside the presence of the signatory.
  4. Glay H. Collier, II. The Court accepted the respondent’s petition for permanent resignation from the practice of law. The respondent pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to one count of bankruptcy fraud. ODC was also investigating other complaints of professional misconduct filed against respondent.
  5. Barry S. Ranshi. The Court ordered that the respondent be immediately reinstated to the practice of law, provided that he strictly adheres to the requirements of his LAP agreement. The respondent was previously suspended for violating the terms of his LAP contract.
  6. Warren A. Perrin. The Court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline, and publicly reprimanded the respondent him. ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent notarized documents outside the presence of the signatories.
  7. Sangbahn Youloamour Scere. The Court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline, and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent acknowledged violating rules 1.5(f)(3)(4) and 1.15(a)(b of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
  8. Stanley S. Spring, II. The Court granted the respondent’s petition for transfer to disability inactive status.
  9. Kenneth T. Wallace. The Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law on an interim basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19.3.

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

  1. Jalila Eshe Bullock. The Board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day, six months deferred. The respondent failed to inform her client that the tortfeasor in a personal-injury case had no insurance, failed to inform her client that the claim had prescribed, and delayed notifying her client of her own malpractice.
  2. Katherine M. Guste. The Board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years. The respondent failed to finalize work that she was hired to handle, and failed to return unearned fees, court costs, and her client’s file. She also failed to provide an accounting of the hours that she claims to have worked on behalf of the client.
  3. Roy Joseph Richard, Jr. The Board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day, with all but sixty days deferred. The respondent converted client funds and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation.
  4. Janinne Latrell Gilbert. The Board recommended that the respondent be disbarred. The respondent neglected client matters and converted client funds.
  5. Julie Ann Fusilier. The Board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for eighteen months. The respondent failed to comply with the requirements of her LAP agreement.

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board Hearing Committees

  1. Arthur Gilmore, Jr. Hearing Committee No. 35 recommended that the respondent be disbarred for five years. Respondent accepted money to use his official position to influence the outcome of certain zoning issues before the Monroe City Council.
  2. Ashton R. O’Dwyer, Jr. Hearing Committee No. 23 recommended that the respondent be permanently disbarred. The Hearing Committee determined that the respondent committed numerous violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, thereby revealing a lack of respect for the authority of the federal courts, the Louisiana Supreme Court, and the disciplinary authorities of the state. The Committee also determined that his conduct showed a disregard for both the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professionalism.
Please follow and like us: