June 2020 Discipline

Posted on by

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

Louisiana Supreme Court

  1. Harold Louis Lee. The court granted the respondent’s request for permanent resignation in lieu of discipline. The respondent was convicted by a federal jury of one count of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud and try counts of bank fraud.
  2. Kirby Dale Kelly. The court permanently disbarred the respondent. The respondent knowingly and intentionally violated duties owed to his clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession, causing significant harm to his clients and third parties. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 1.15, 5.1, 5.3, 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).
  3. Darrell K. Hickman. The court suspended the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent neglected two legal matters, failed to communicate with two clients, and misrepresented the status of a case to one client. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).
  4. Ella D. Kliebert. The court suspended the respondent for one year and one day. The court accepted a petition for consent discipline submitted by the respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in which respondent acknowledged that she violated Rule 8.4(a) and (b) by being arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol.
  5. Brian A. Dragon. The court suspended the respondent for three years. The court accepted a petition for consent discipline submitted by the respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in which respondent acknowledged that he violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.9, 1.16, 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
  6. Raymond Charles Burkart, III. The court permanently disbarred the respondent. The respondent neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to refund unearned fees, was arrested for stalking and harassment before pleading guilty to telephone communication harassment, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 8.1(c) and 8.4(a).
  7. John Hoychick, Jr. The court publicly reprimanded the respondent. The court accepted a petition for consent discipline submitted by the respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in response to allegations that the respondent negligently commingled funds in his client trust account.
  8. Jerry L. Settle. The court adjudged the respondent guilty of additional violations which warrant discipline and which may be considered in the event he applies for reinstatement from his prior suspension once becoming eligible to do so. The court accepted a petition for consent discipline submitted by the respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in which respondent acknowledged that he violated Rule 1.15.
  9. Ronald David Harvey. The court suspended the respondent for six months. The respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, and failed to promptly refund an unearned fee.
  10. Kemic Alan Smothers. The court suspended the respondent for six months. The respondent practiced law while ineligible to do so and violated duties owed to his client and the legal profession, causing actual harm. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(b), 1.1(c), 5.5(a), 8.4(a).
  11. Francis C. Broussard. The court extended the minimum period for which the respondent may seek readmission from his disbarment by one year and one day. The respondent failed to update his address with the LSBA, failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in his representation of a client, and failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a legal matter. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(c), 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

  1. Jaymeski Pullins-Gorham. The board recommended that the court suspend the respondent for six months. The respondent mishandled her client trust account and converted client funds. The respondent’s conduct violated Rules 1.5(f)(5), 1.15(a), 1.15(f), and 8.4(c).
  2. Peter Brian Derouen. The board recommended that the court permanently disbar the respondent and order him to pay restitution to clients. Among other acts of misconduct, the respondent practiced law while inegligble to do so, neglected client matters, and failed to cooperate with ODC. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.5(a), 15(f)(5), 5.5(a), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
  3. Robert W. Malone. The board recommended that the court suspend the respondent for two years. The respondent neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to return his clients’ files upon request, failed to provide an accounting or refund unearned fees, and failed to cooperate with ODC in its investigation of disciplinary complaints brought against him. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).
  4. Nicholas Anthony Bellard. The board recommended that the court disbar the respondent. The respondent neglected client matters, failed to communicate with clients, converted client funds, failed to return unearned fees, failed to return client files, and failed to cooperate with ODC. The respondent’s behavior violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16, 3.2, 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).

LADB Hearing Committee

  1. Timothy David Ray. Hearing Committee #10 recommended that the court suspend the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent knowingly misrepresented factual information to a judge regarding expenditure of public funds. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(c).
  2. Devonna M. Ponthieu. Hearing Committee #27 recommended that the court suspend the respondent for nine months. The respondent violated duties owed to the legal system and the public. In so doing, the respondent violated Rule 8.4(a), (b), and (d).
  3. Kevin Michael Steel. Hearing Committee #6 recommended that the court permanently disbar the respondent. Among other acts of misconduct, the respondent neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, borrowed money from clients without taking the appropriate steps, failed to repay the client, and withheld funds owed to a third party. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.5(f)(5), 1.8(a), 1.8(k), 1.15(d), 8.1(a), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
  4. Sally Harrison Longmire Hingel. Hearing Committee #37 recommended that the court permanently disbar the respondent. The respondent wasplead guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(b).
Please follow and like us:
Tweet