June 2024 Discipline

These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders of Louisiana Attorney Discipline Board recommendations published during the month of June 2024.

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. Robert W. Sharp. The court suspended the respondent for six months. The respondent attempted to represent a criminal defendant who was accused of abusing his minor daughter, the stepmother of the minor daughter, as well as the minor children, including the victim, and then attempted to continue his representation after the court disqualified him from doing so. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.7, 8.4(a), and 8.4(d).
2. Marc G. Dorsey. The court suspended the respondent for a period of six months, deferred in its entirety. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent mismanaged his client trust account, which resulted in the commingling and conversion of funds, and failed to register his trust account with the LSBA.
3. Don R. Williams. The court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. The respondent negligently mishandled his client trust account.
4. Jonas K. Nash. The court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. The court deferred the suspension in its entirety. The respondent mismanaged his client trust account. This misconduct occurred after the respondent participated in the diversion program for similar trust account misconduct.
5. Irvin Joseph Celestine, Jr. The court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year. The court deferred the suspension in its entirety and ordered that the suspension run consecutively to the one year and one day suspension imposed by the court in a prior discipline case.
6. John C. Alenander. The court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year. The court had previously ordered the respondent be suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis. However, the respondent continued to practice law. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 5.5(a) and 8.4(c).
7. Virgil A. Lacy, III. The court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. Prior to filing the joint petition for consent discipline, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent neglected a legal matter and failed to communicate with a client.
8. N. Sundiata Haley. The court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent was a litigant in a domestic matter when he encountered the lawyer for his spouse in a court hallway and walked into her, causing her emotional upset but no physical injuries. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(d).
9. Alton Bates, II. The court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for eighteen months. The court ordered that the suspension be retroactive to the effective date of the respondent’s interim suspension. The respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with his client, and failed to supervise a non-lawyer assistant.
10. Michael D. Bass. The court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day, with six months of the suspension deferred. The ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent failed to render a periodic accounting to clients and failed to properly terminate the representations of his clients. Further, the respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC’s investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.5(f)(3), 1.16(d), and 8.1(c).
11. Sylvester K. Johnson. The court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. The ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent engaged in the practice of law during a period of ineligibility in violation of Rules 1.1(b) and 5.5(a).
12. Robert Charles Jenkins, Jr. The court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day. The court previously suspended the respondent for one year and one day, with all but six months deferred. Thereafter, the ODC investigated allegations that the respondent failed to inform a client of his suspension, failed to withdraw from the representation of his client, and filed two false affidavits with the court. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.4, 1.16(a)(11), 8.1(a), and 8.4(c).
13. William M. Magee. The court granted the petitioner’s petition for reinstatement.
14. Frank John Labruzzo. The court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for three years. The respondent pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, a felony violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c).
15. Garrett Michael Joffrion. The court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, with all but thirty days deferred. The respondent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and practiced law while ineligible to do so. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(b), 1.1(c), 5.5(a), and 8.4(b).
16. Tamara Kluger Jacobson. The court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. Prior to the filing of the joint petition for consent discipline, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent negligently mishandled her client trust account.
17. Mark El-Amm. The court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for six months, deferred in its entirety. The ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent mismanaged his client trust account.
18. Lane N. Bennett. The court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and adjudicated the respondent guilty of additional violations warranting discipline that shall be considered in the event he applies for reinstatement from his current suspension.
19. Adam Granville Young. The court suspended the respondent for one year and one day, with all but ninety days of the suspension deferred. The respondent entered into an improper business transaction with a client. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.8(a) and 8.4(a).
20. Timothy A. Meche. The court suspended the respondent for two years. The respondent had been arrested for DWI on three occasions. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(b).
21. Robert Wiliam Hjortsberg. The court suspended the respondent for six months, with all but thirty days deferred. The respondent failed to file income tax returns for 2017 and 2018. Further, the respondent did not actively participate in the criminal trial of his client, the defendant, after the client left during voir dire and failed to return to the courtroom. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).