July 2014 Discipline

Louisiana State SealThese Louisiana lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders or Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommendations made public during the month of July 2014.

Louisiana Supreme Court

  1. William Steven Mannear. The court granted the applicant’s petition for permanent resignation in lieu of discipline for pleading guilty in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana to the charge of receiving child pornography.
  2. Robin K. Ljungberg. The court revoked the respondent’s conditional admission to practice of law and ordered that the respondent may not reapply for admission until he can demonstrate a one-year period of sobriety and compliance with the terms of a recovery agreement with the Lawyers’ Assistance Program (LAP).
  3. Donita Yvette Brooks. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a year and a day for neglecting a legal matter, failing to communicate with a client, failing to refund the unearned portion of a fee, and failing to return a client file upon request.
  4. Confidential Party. The court denied the respondent’s petition for transfer from disability-inactive status to active status (for unspecified reasons).

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

  1. Madro Bandaries. The board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, with all but three months deferred. The board also recommended that the respondent serve a one year period of unsupervised probation upon the conclusion of the active portion of his suspension. The board found that the respondent engaged in a pattern of frivolous and harassing litigation against a former client.

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board Hearing Committees

  1. Donald R. Pryor. Hearing Committee No. 24 recommended that the respondent be permanently disbarred. In representing a defendant charged with simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling, the respondent offered the victim of the charged burglary $300 to drop the charges, and $500 to not show up in court on the day of the trial. At the hearing, the committee considered as an aggravating factor that multiple complaints had been made against the respondent over the course of thirteen years.
  2. Don L. Simmons, Jr.  Hearing Committee No. 52 determined unanimously that the ODC did not prove its case against the respondent by clear and convincing evidence, and recommended that all charges against the respondent be dismissed. ODC charged the respondent with offering $50,000 to a police officer in exchange for his affidavit corroborating information in an allegedly derogatory flyer regarding a public official in Baton Rouge. The ODC was unable to prove its case because there was conflicting evidence regarding what the respondent communicated to the police officer.
  3. Daniel James Stanford. The hearing committee determined that the ODC did not prove that the respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, and recommended dismissal of all formal charges against him. ODC charged the respondent with violating the Rules by failing to inform the court that the State opposed a joint motion allowing the respondent’s client to withdraw a guilty plea. In recommending a dismissal of the charges, the committee noted that the State’s attorney signed the joint motion in question.
Please follow and like us: