June 2022 Discipline

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

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. Kenneth J. Beck. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a period of eighteen months, with all but ninety days deferred, followed by a one-year period of probation governed by the conditions set forth in the petition for consent discipline. Respondent neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, disobeyed court orders, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, 3.4(c), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. Monique H. Fields. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year, with all but thirty days deferred, followed by a two-year probation period governed by the conditions set forth in the petition for consent discipline. Respondent mishandled her client trust account.
3. William K. Hawkins. The court disbarred the respondent. Respondent neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to provide client files upon request, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. Additionally, the respondent violated duties owed to his clients, causing significant actual harm. In doing so, respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 8.1(c), 8.4(a).
4. Carol S. Hunter. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a period of six months, fully deferred subject to a one-year period of unsupervised probation and respondent’s attendance at the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Ethics School. Respondent notarized a will that was executed by the testator outside of the presence of the witnesses. In doing so, respondent violated Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
5. George Allen Roth Walsh. The court disbarred the respondent and adjudged him guilty of additional violations warranting disbarment to be considered in the event he seeks readmission. Respondent pleaded guilty to first offense DWI and then failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated 8.1(b), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
6. Byron C. Williams. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. While respondent was serving as a judge, he engaged in the unwelcome touching of several women and acted inappropriately in the courtroom.
7. Thomas P. Adams. The court granted a joint petition for transfer to disability inactive status deferring disciplinary proceedings against him until he resumes active status.
8. Christopher Dowd Hatch. The court granted a joint petition for interim suspension and suspended him from the practice of law on an interim basis pending further orders of the court.
9. Nicholas A. Holton. The court suspended respondent from the practice of law on an interim basis pending further orders of the court in consideration of a petition for interim suspension for threat of harm filed by the ODC.
10. Donovan Kenneth Hudson. The court suspended respondent from the practice of law on an interim basis pending further orders of the court in consideration of a petition for interim suspension for threat of harm filed by the ODC.
11. Jamar Akai Brooks Myers-Montgomery. The court denied a petition for reinstatement and prohibited the petitioner from reapplying for reinstatement until he has fully complied with the child support orders of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
12. Eric J. Hessler. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended respondent from the practice of law for the period of one year and one day, deferred in its entirety. The court also placed respondent on probation for the term of his diagnostic monitoring agreement with JLAP. The respondent was charged with driving while intoxicated.
13. George Randy Trelles. The court suspended respondent from the practice of law for the period of eighteen months retroactive to the date of his interim suspension. The court further ordered respondent to either make restitution to his clients who were the subject of formal charges against him or participate in the LSBA’s Fee Dispute Resolution Program. Respondent neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to refund unearned fees, practiced law while ineligible to do so, was arrested for DWI, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation.
14. Heidi M. Vessel. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day fully deferred subject to respondent’s successful completion of a two-year probation period.
15. Claude P. Devall, Jr. The court transferred respondent to interim disability status pending a multidisciplinary inpatient professional assessment in consideration of a petition to transfer to interim disability status filed by the ODC.
16. David R. Opperman. The court suspended respondent from the practice of law on an interim basis in consideration of a petition for interim suspension filed by the ODC.
17. Corrie Ruth Gallien. The court granted petitioner’s request for reinstatement to active status subject to the execution of a one-year monitoring agreement with JLAP.
18. Richard C. Oustalet, Jr. The court accepted petitioner’s application for reinstatement to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to a two-year probationary period. Petitioner must show proof of being current in state and federal tax filing and payment, complete the LSBA’s Ethics School and mandatory CLEs, and complete an additional six hours of CLE in the area of law office management.
19. Lenise Rochelle Williams. The court suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of three years. Respondent practiced law after being suspended. In doing so, she violated Rules 1.16(a)(1), 5.5(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

1. Richard L. Root. The board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months with five months deferred. Respondent knowingly signed a colleague’s name to a petition filed in an out-of-state court without the colleague’s knowledge or consent. In doing so, respondent violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 4.1(a), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d).
2. Patrick C. Morrow. The board ordered that all formal charges against respondent be dismissed after concluding that the ODC failed to meet its burden of proof that respondent violated Rule 7.7(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for failing to file an advertisement with the LSBA.

LADB Hearing Committees

1. Kyle D. Schonekas. The committee #10 recommended that charges against respondent be dismissed after concluding that one alleged violation was not proven and that the other “technical” violation did not warrant any sanction.
2. Michael Isaias Rodriguez, Jr. The committee #12 recommended that respondent be disbarred. Respondent continued representation of a client during respondent’s ineligibility to practice law; intentionally deceived his client and opposing counsel; defrauded the court by filing a false motion to add counsel; made false statements to opposing counsel and the court with no other purpose than to delay; failed to act with diligence in representing his client; failed to protect his client’s best interests after his representation was terminated; and failed to cooperate or provide any information or defenses in the proceedings against him. In doing so, respondent violated Rules 1.1(b) & (c), 1.3, 1.16(a)(1), 3.2, 4.1(a), 4.4(a), 5.5(a) & (e)(3), 8.1(b) & (c), and 8.4(a) (c) &(d).
3. Bart James Bellaire. The committee #7 recommended that respondent be suspended for six months with all but ninety days deferred. Respondent represented adverse parties in a real estate transaction without obtaining his clients’ informed consent to waive the conflict of interest. Additionally, respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation.  In doing so, he violated Rules 1.7(a), 1.9(a), and 8.1(b) & (c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.