January 2022 Discipline

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

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. Carol Savant Loy. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. The respondent violated Rules 1.3 and 1.4 of the Rules of Professional conduct.
2. Anna M. Jackson. The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent neglected client matters, failed to communicate with her clients, failed to reduce a contingency fee to writing, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 8.1(c) of the Rules of Professional conduct.
3. Claude Pierson Devall, Jr. The court granted the respondent’s petition for transfer to active status, subject to the condition that the respondent adhere to all terms of his recovery agreement with JLAP.
4. Matthew John Ungarino. The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, with all but forty-five days deferred. The respondent knowingly made false statements to a magistrate judge, disobeyed local rules of the court, engaged in an improper ex parte communication with a law clerk, and lied about the true intent of the ex parte communication. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
5. Martin Edward Regan, Jr. The court granted the joint petition for transfer to disability inactive status.
6. Brad Thomas Andrus. The court disbarred the respondent from the practice of law. The respondent neglected his client’s legal matter, charged and collected an unreasonable fee, converted client funds in his trust account, failed to return his client’s file upon request, and engaged in deceptive and dishonest behavior throughout the disciplinary proceeding. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.5(a), 1.15(a), 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.1(c), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
7. Richard L. Reynolds. The court disbarred the respondent from the practice of law. The respondent pleaded guilty to one count of misprision of felony arising out of a bribery scheme in Texas. The court imposed reciprocal discipline based upon discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
8. Myles Julian Johnson. The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for six months. The respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, failed to properly withdraw from a representation, failed to fulfill his professional obligations, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(b), 1.1(c), 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 8.1(b), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
9. Lynn Plaisance Johnson. The court disbarred the respondent from the practice of law. The court imposed reciprocal discipline based upon discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of Missouri.
10. C. Kevin Hayes. The court granted a joint petition for interim suspension from the practice of law.
11. John David Allen. The court granted the respondent’s permanent resignation from the practice of law in lieu of discipline. The ODC filed charges against the respondent, alleging that he violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 1.5(b), 1.5(f), 1.16(d), 3.1, 8.1(b). 8.4(a), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

1. Joseph B. Morton III. The board recommended that the court suspend the respondent from the practice of law for six months, fully deferred. Respondent negligently engaged in improper billing practices. In doing so, the Respondent violated Rules 1.5(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. Sedric E. Banks. The board recommended that the court suspend the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent failed to comply with his client’s instructions to dismiss a lawsuit, failed to withdraw as counsel, attempted to recover an unreasonable fee, pursued non-meritorious claims, and represented a person materially adverse to a former client in a substantially related matter. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.2(a), 1.5(a), 1.9, 1.16, and 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

LADB Hearing Committees

1. Tim L. Fields. Hearing Committee #9 recommended that the court disbar the respondent from the practice of law. The respondent failed to annually register and properly disclose trust account information, passed overhead costs of a lawyer’s practice to a client, obtained a power of attorney in an initial contract, converted client funds, failed to promptly notify and pay third-party providers, failed to ensure lawyers signed every check and directed transfers from the client trust account, failed to create and maintain an IOLTA account, failed to supervise a non-lawyer, knowingly made a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter, and failed to correct a misapprehension that arose in the matter. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(c), 1.2(a), 1.8(e)(3), 1.8(k), 1.15(a), 1.15(d), 1.15(f), 1.15(g), 5.3, 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. Rolando Roberto Urbina. Hearing Committee #14 recommended that the court suspend the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent failed to maintain his client trust account and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.15(f), 8.1(b), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
3. Richard Forrest White. Hearing Committee #6 recommended that the court suspend the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent failed to return a client file upon request, failed to communicate with a client, failed to terminate client representation, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a)(3)-(4), 1.16(d), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a) of the Rules of Professional conduct.