June 2023 Discipline

These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders or Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommendations published during the month of June 2023.

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. Nicholas A. Holton. The court granted a petition for permanent resignation from the practice of law in lieu of discipline. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) filed formal charges against respondent alleging that he committed serious attorney misconduct, including neglecting client matters, failing to communicate with multiple clients and courts, and abandoning his law practice and relocating out of state. The respondent sought to permanently resign from the practice of law in lieu of discipline. The ODC concurred in respondent’s petition.
2. Michael S. Bradley. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for two years, with one year deferred. The suspension was imposed retroactively to November 23, 2021, the date of the respondent’s interim suspension. The respondent neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, and engaged in dishonest and deceitful conduct.
3. Larue Haigler, III. The court granted the ODC’s petition for reciprocal disability inactive status and ordered that the respondent be transferred to disability inactive status.
4. Bobby R. Manning. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for a period of six months, deferred in its entirety. Prior to the filing of the petition for consent discipline, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent had mismanaged his client trust account, which resulted in the negligent commingling and conversion of funds.
5. Ricardo A. Caballero. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, with all but 90 days of the suspension deferred. The ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent mishandled his client trust account. Prior to the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline in which respondent admitted that he violated Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(b), and 1.15(f).
6. Carol Savant Loy. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and disbarred the respondent. Prior to the filing of the petition for consent discipline, the ODC had commended an investigation into allegations that respondent converted client funds for personal use.
7. Flynn Kempff Smith. The court suspended respondent for two years. The respondent practiced law after becoming ineligible to do so. Respondent also engaged in criminal conduct involving DWI and possession of cocaine. The court noted that there was no evidence that the respondent had addressed his apparent substance use disorder. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(c), 5.5(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(b).
8. David Coleman, II. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for a period of six months, entirely deferred. Prior to the filing of the petition for consent discipline, the ODC commended an investigation into allegations that respondent had mismanaged his client trust account, which resulted in the negligent commingling and conversion of funds.
9. Paul J. Tellarico. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for a period of six months, deferred in its entirety. Prior to the filing of the petition for consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent mishandled his client trust account. In doing so, respondent violated Rules 1.15(a) and 1.15(b).
10. LaDeisha N. Woods. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for six months, entirely deferred. Prior to the filing of the petition for consent discipline, the ODC commended an investigation into allegations that the respondent mishandled her client trust account. In doing so, respondent violated Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(b), and 1.15(f).
11. Richard C. Dalton. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. Prior to the filing of the petition for consent discipline, the ODC commended an investigation into allegations that the respondent settled his clients’ legal matter without their knowledge or consent. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.2.(a), 1.8(k), and 8.4(a).
12. David F. Townsend. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and adjudged the respondent guilty of additional violations which warrant discipline and which may be considered in the event that he applies for readmission from his disbarment.
13. Myles Julian Johnson. The court granted the ODC’s petition to initiate reciprocal discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law on an interim basis.
14. Gary E. Theall. The court granted the respondent’s petition for voluntary resign from the practice of law.

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

1. Janeane Gorcyca Abbot. The board recommended that respondent be suspended for sixty days with additional conditions as outlined in the opinion. The respondent failed to file an appeal of her client’s case, failed to communicate with her client for over two months despite the client’s repeated attempts at contact, failed to inform the client that the appeal had not been timely filed and failed to inform the client of the possible existence of a malpractice action against the respondent. The respondent also failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite the litigation and acted dishonestly and deceitfully in not telling the client that the appeal had not been perfected. The respondent also gave false information to the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 3.2, 8.1, 8.4(a).
2. Donald R. Dobbins. The board recommended that the petitioner’s petition for reinstatement be denied.

LADB Hearing Committees

1. Derrick K. Williams. Hearing Committee # 22 recommended that the court disbar respondent. The respondent knowingly forged his client’s name on a settlement check and failed to return the Complainant’s calls, failed to provide the Complaint with a written contingency fee agreement, abandoned his law practice, and failed to participate in the lawyer discipline proceedings. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a)(4), 1.5(a), 1.5(b), 1.5(c), 1.15(d), 8.1(c), and 8.4(c).
2. Kevin Matthew Dantzler. Hearing Committee #36 recommended that the court permanently disbar the respondent. The respondent had been convicted twice for possession of controlled dangerous substances (fentanyl) and had been arrested for issuing worthless checks. The respondent did not respond to the discipline complaint nor participate in the discipline proceedings whatsoever. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(b).
3. Jim Hall. Hearing Committee #37 recommended that the court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for four months, fully deferred. The respondent knowingly submitted an affidavit and memorandum in support of an exception of improper venue that contained facts that the respondent knew were false. The respondent also disseminated a television advertisement that was not pre-filed with the LSBA and did not pay the LSBA the required filing fee, did not contain the location of his practice, and did not include proper disclosures related to the portrayal of clients and scenes depicting an accident. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 3.3(a)(3), 7.2(a)(2), 7.2(c)(1)(I), 7.7(c), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
4. Tristan P. Gilley. Hearing Committee # 17 recommended that the court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a period of six months, with all but 90 days deferred. The respondent failed to take the necessary actions to protect his client, failed to keep his client informed, and failed to maintain the client file in a professional manner so as to meet necessary deadlines. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 3.2, 8.1(b) and (c), 8.4(a)(c) an (d).