June 2021 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 2021.

Louisiana Supreme Court

  1. Kevin Lovell James. The court accepted a joint motion seeking to extend the respondent’s probation for a period of one year following a 2019 suspension from the practice of law for mishandling her trust account and failing to cooperate with ODC.
  2. Peggy Inez Garris. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline suspending the respondent for a period of one year and one day, fully deferred. The respondent mismanaged her client trust account. In doing so, the respondent violated Rule 1.15(a)(b)(f) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
  3. James A. Hatch. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline publicly reprimanding the respondent. The respondent filed a petition for damages while he was ineligible to practice law.
  4. Michael W. Fontenot. The count granted a joint petition for interim suspension. It gave no reasons for so doing.
  5. Michael Langdon Cave. The court reinstated respondent to the practice of law. The court made the respondent’s reinstatement conditional on JLAP participation, among other conditions.
  6. Lenise R. Williams. The court revoked the respondent’s probation and imposed the previously-deferred suspension of one year and one day from the practice of law. The respondent violated additional Rules of Professional Conduct while on court-ordered probation and she failed to comply with her probation agreement imposed in a prior disciplinary proceeding.
  7. Patrick Bruce Sanders. The court granted the respondent’s petition for permanent resignation from the practice of law in lieu of discipline. The ODC alleged respondent provided false information in his application for admission to the Louisiana Bar, engaged in a conflict of interest, and mismanaged his client trust account. He was formerly a priest accused of molesting juveniles.
  8. Elizabeth H. Icamina. The court granted a joint petition for interim suspension. It gave no reasons for so doing.
  9. George A. Flournoy. The court revoked respondent’s probation for his additional violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct during the active portion of his suspension. The court imposed the previously deferred portion of the one-year suspension arising from a prior disciplinary proceeding. The respondent instructed his secretary to date and notarize an affidavit on a date after it was actually executed. Further, during the active portion of his suspension, respondent informed opposing counsel he needed a continuance due to medical reasons when he actually needed the continuance because he was suspended from the practice of law. The respondent’s conduct violated Rules 3.3(a), 4.1(a), 5.3(b), (c)(1) & (c)(2), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).
  10. Frank E. Brown, Jr. The court granted the respondent’s petition for permanent resignation from the practice of law in lieu of discipline. The ODC filed formal charges alleging respondent engaged in criminal misconduct, misused his client trust account, failed to maintain proper records, and comingled client funds.
  11. George Allen Roth Walsh. The court disbarred the respondent. The respondent represented a client, counseled his client, and filed legal pleadings while suspended and ineligible to practice law. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.16(a)(1), 5.5(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).
  12. Kevin C. Schoenberger. The court suspended respondent for a period of one year and one day, with all but sixty days deferred. The respondent negligently mismanaged his trust account and backdated certain third-party checks to deceive the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.15(d) and 8.4(c).

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

  1. Samuel Robert Aucoin. The board recommended that the court suspend respondent for one year and one day. The respondent failed to satisfy his MCLE requirements in violation of Rule 1.1(b). The respondent filed at least one pleading and notarized a document while ineligible to practice law in violation of Rule 5.5(a). The respondent submitted altered documentation to the LSBA regarding completion of a CLE court, gave false information regarding completion of the court to the ODC, and falsely denied having engaged in the practice of law while ineligible to do so in his sworn statement, all in violation of Rule 8.4(c). The respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in violation of Rule 8.1(c).
  2. Shelia J. Linscomb. The board recommended that petitioner court reinstate the respondent to the practice of law, subject to a two-year probationary period.

LADB Hearing Committees

  1. Danminh Quy Mui. Hearing Committee # 49 recommended that the court suspend the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent engaged in criminal conduct by driving while intoxicated and failed to follow through on ODC’s request to undergo an evaluation by a Judges’ and Lawyers’ Assistance Program approved evaluator. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.1(c) and 8.4(b).
  2. Robert B. Evans III. Hearing Committee # 23 recommended that the court disbar respondent. The respondent intentionally deceived the court on two separate occasions and continued to practice law while ineligible to do so while under suspension. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 5.5, 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
  3. Zachary Ryan Moffett. Hearing Committee # 17 recommended that the court disbar respondent. Respondent knowingly neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. Respondent engaged in further misconduct by failing to inform his clients that he had been placed on interim suspension. Respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and failed to return unearned fees. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16(d), 5.5, 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).
  4. Andre Belanger. Hearing Committee # 27 recommended that the court dismiss all formal charges in the case. The ODC had charged the respondent with failing to submit an advertisement in Super Lawyers magazine to the LSBA for preapproval.
Please follow and like us:
Tweet