March 2022 Discipline

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

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. John Lynn Ponder. The court granted a petition for permanent retirement from the practice of law.
2. Barron M. Whipple. The court granted a joint petition for transfer to disability inactive status.
3. Robert Wiegand, II. The court imposed reciprocal discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. The respondent violated Rules 1.4(b) and 1.7(a)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in a legal matter in Colorado.
4. Joseph B. Morton, III. The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for six months, fully deferred. The respondent improperly billed clients for depositions and travel expenses that did not occur. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.5(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
5. Edmond H. Knoll. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, fully deferred. The respondent engaged in criminal conduct.
6. William Francis Henderson. The court granted the petitioner’s application for readmission to the practice of law and readmitted the petitioner to the practice of law, subject to a one-year period of supervised probation.
7. Joseph S. Giardina. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for two years, fully deferred.
8. Elizabeth A. Spurgeon. The court granted a joint petition to transfer to active status and reinstated the respondent to active status.
9. Michael P. Arata. The court granted an application for readmission and readmitted the petitioner to the practice of law.
10. Timothy David Ray. The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. As interim Clerk of the First City Court, the respondent misused public funds and made false statements to a judge. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
11. Lane Norwood Bennett. The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for three years. The respondent engaged in dishonest conduct and conduct constituting a conflict of interest. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.7(a), 1.8(a), 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
12. Gregory F. Gambel. The court granted a petition for consent discipline and disbarred the respondent. The respondent engaged in criminal activity, neglected legal matters, and commingled and converted client funds. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3(a), 1.4(a)-(b), 1.15(a)-(b), 8.4(a)-(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

1. Jarvis J. Claiborne. The board recommended that the court suspend the respondent for six months, with three months deferred. The respondent failed to communicate with a client, failed to act with diligence, negligently allowed a client’s case to become abandoned, and made false statements in response to the disciplinary complaint. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 8.1(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. George Randy Trelles. The board recommended that the court suspend the respondent from the practice of law for eighteenth months, retroactive to the date of the respondent’s interim suspension. The respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while ineligible, failed to communicate and act with diligence in his representation of clients, failed to return unearned fees to clients, drove while intoxicated, engaged in other criminal behavior, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f), 5.5(a), 8.1(c), and 8.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

LADB Hearing Committees

1. Mark Jeffrey Neal. Hearing Committee #3 recommended that the court suspend the respondent for one year and one day, with all but sixty days deferred. The respondent engaged in criminal activity and engaged in dishonest behavior. In doing so, the respondent violated rules 8.4(a)-(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. William K. Hawkins. Hearing Committee #62 recommended that the court permanently disbar the respondent. The respondent failed to diligently pursue his clients’ legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to protect his clients’ interests after terminating representation, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 8.1(c), and 8.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
3. William M. Magee. Hearing Committee #62 recommended that the court publicly reprimand the respondent. The respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in contravention of his suspension. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 5.5(a), 5.5(e), and 8.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
4. George Allen Roth Walsh. Hearing Committee #26 recommended that the court permanently disbar the respondent. While disbarred, the respondent drove while intoxicated and refused to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.1(b)-(c) and 8.4(a)-(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
5. Alton Bates. Hearing Committee #27 recommended that the court suspend the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent failed to have a written fee agreement for a contingency fee matter, neglected his client’s case, failed to adequately communicate with his client, failed to consult with his client about settlement, and failed to deposit settlement funds in his trust account. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.4, 1.5(c), 1.15(a), 1.15(d), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.