These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders or Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommendations published during the month of January 2023.
Louisiana Supreme Court
- Joseph Harold Turner, Jr. The court adjudicated the respondent guilty of additional violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct warranting disbarment. The court further ordered that such violations be considered in the event that the respondent, who is currently under an order of disbarment, seeks readmission in the future. The respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by accepting representation and a fee while he was ineligible to practice, failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation, failed to complete his mandatory CLE classes, and failed to pay bar dues. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(b)(c), 1.5(f), 5.5(a), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
- Todd Michael Tyson. The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, failed to promptly refund an unearned fee, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).
- Luke J. Thibodeaux. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for two years, with all but one year and one day deferred. Prior to entering into the consent discipline, the respondent pleaded no contest to charges of domestic battery and simple battery.
- Michael C. Palmintier. The court affirmed the disciplinary board’s dismissal of the formal charges against the respondent.
- Juan Carlos Labadie. The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for two years. Because the respondent was already disbarred, the court noted that the effect of their judgment was to extend by two years the minimum period which must elapse before the respondent may seek readmission to the practice of law. The respondent possessed an illegal narcotic/controlled substance while he was driving a vehicle. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(b).
- Andre Robert Belanger. The court affirmed the disciplinary board’s dismissal of the formal charges against the respondent.
- Jesse P. Lagrande. The court granted a petition to extend the respondent’s probationary period for one year with additional conditions. The respondent failed to promptly respond to a new complaint filed with the ODC, which alleged violations of additional Rules of Professional Conduct.
- Shytishia Moore Flugence. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for six months, deferred in its entirety. Prior to entering into the consent discipline, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent mishandled her client trust account, failed to promptly remit funds to third-party providers, failed to execute written contingency fee agreements, failed to prepare settlement statements, and failed to comply with notice requirements when providing financial assistance to clients.
- W. James Singleton. The court suspended the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent made a false statement of fact during his sworn statement with the ODC, the respondent failed to provide his client with a settlement disbursement sheet, the respondent commingled and converted client settlement funds, the respondent failed to promptly deliver the settlement funds to his client, and the respondent failed to render a proper accounting to his client. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.5(c), 1.15(a), 1.15(d), 8.1(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(a).
- Robert Bartholomew Evans III. The court disbarred the respondent. The respondent filed an ex parte motion to withdraw disputed funds from the registry of the court representing he had served opposing counsel with the motion and that counsel for the plaintiffs had been contacted and did not oppose the motion. These representations were false. The respondent also engaged in the practice of law and handled client funds through his law firm’s trust account while under an order of interim suspension. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 5.5, 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
- Alton Bates, II. The court suspended the respondent for one year and one day, with all but six months deferred. The respondent settled his client’s case without consulting with the client, deposited the client’s settlement check into his operating account, failed to prepare a written disbursement statement, and failed to disburse any proceeds from the settlement to his client. Further, although the judge signed an order dismissing the client’s case, the respondent continued to communicate with the client without disclosing that the case had settled and was dismissed. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.4, 1.5(c), 1.15(a), 1.15(d), and 8.4(c).
LADB Hearing Committees
- Timothy A. Meche. Hearing Committee #23 recommended that the court suspend the respondent from the practice of law for two years. The respondent was arrested for, charged with, and pled guilty to driving while intoxicated. The respondent was arrested a second time and charged with hit and run and driving while intoxicated. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(b).
- Michelle Miller Odinet. Hearing Committee #5 recommended that the court dismiss the formal charges against the respondent since the ODC failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent violated Rules 8.1(a) or 8.4(d) of the Louisian Rules of Professional Conduct. While serving as a sitting judge, the respondent used racial slurs in her home after witnessing an individual break into the family vehicle. The respondent’s comments were captured on film and widely circulated on the internet. The committee concluded that discipline of the respondent was unwarranted.
Please follow and like us:
