March 2023 Discipline

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

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. William Huye. The court granted the petition for interim suspension for threat of harm filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and suspended the respondent from the practice of law.
2. W. Glenn Soileau. The court permanently disbarred the respondent. The respondent was arrested for drinking and driving following a traffic accident, rented hotel rooms to facilitate prostitution, counseled a client to destroy evidence, and obstructed justice by interfering with a law enforcement investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.2(d), 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c).
3. Philip Montelepre. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for three years, with all but one year and one day deferred. Prior to filing the petition for consent discipline. the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent engaged in a pattern of filing frivolous lawsuits, propounded frivolous and irrelevant discovery, misrepresented that he was a certified public accountant in a judicial campaign advertisement, violated state and federal law, made fraudulent misrepresentations, and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. When the ODC attempted to investigate these matters, respondent failed to cooperate with the investigation.
4. Wren’nel M. Gibson. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for three years. Prior to entering into the consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent failed to timely disburse settlement funds owed to a client and the client’s medical provider, failed to adequately communicate with the client, converted or allowed the conversion of client funds, failed to timely provide the client with her file upon written request, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in two investigations.
5. Brenda F. Ford. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for a period of six months, with all but ninety days of the suspension deferred. Prior to entering into the consent discipline agreement, the ODC commended an investigation into allegations that respondent engaged in a conflict of interest involving two concurrent clients. In doing so, the respondent admitted that her conduct violated Rules 1.7(a)(1), 1.7(a)(2), and 8.4(a).
6. Charles L. McCollum. The court granted a petition for interim suspension filed by the Office of Disciplinary Court and suspended the respondent from the practice of law on a n interim basis.
7. Dustin Paul Segura. The court granted a petition for revocation of conditional admission filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
8. Edward J. McCloskey. The court suspended the respondent for a period of two years, with all but one year of the suspension deferred. The respondent mishandled his client trust account by converting at least $10,288.15 in clerk of court refunds owed to his clients. Specifically, he paid these funds to himself based on invoices he created for work performed for other clients for which he never intended to charge those other clients. He also allowed his trust account to become overdrawn and made disbursements from his trust account in excess of the associated client balances. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.15(a) and 8.4(c).
9. Quiana Marie Hunt. The court suspended the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent failed to fulfill her professional obligations, failed to pay costs associated with a prior disciplinary matter, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in two investigations. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(b), 1.1(c), 8.1(b), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).
10. Darrell Keith Hickman. The court granted a petition for permanent resignation from the practice of law in lieu of discipline. The ODC had filed formal charges against the respondent alleging that he committed serious attorney misconduct, including failing to adequately communicate with his clients and providing false and misleading information to his clients, courts, opposing counsel, and the ODC.
11. Christopher Alexander Gross. The court disbarred the respondent. The respondent represented a client in court during a period of ineligibility, he collected attorney’s fees from a client and never turned them over to the law firm, he accepted legal fees, neglected the legal matters, failed to refund unearned fees, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of numerous complaints. In doing so, the respondent violated 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(5), 1.15(a), 5.5, 8.1(b), 8.1(c), 8.4(a) and 8.4(c).
12. Heather Chapin McAllister. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. Prior to filing the petition for consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent failed to promptly refund an unearned fee in violation of Rule 1.16(d).

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

1. David Band, Jr. The board recommended that the court suspended the respondent for six months. The respondent contacted a represented party in civil litigation via social media and email without consent from opposing counsel. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 4.2(a) and 8.1(a).
2. Mark Jeffery Neal. The board recommended that the court suspended the respondent for one year and one day, with six months deferred. The respondent was arrested for one count of simple battery following an altercation with the owner of a local restaurant. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.1(a) and (b).
3. Tim L. Fields. The board recommended that the court permanently disbar the respondent. The respondent negligently converted approximately 4.2 million dollars in client funds between 2009 and 2015, but he also engaged in repeated and multiple instances of intentional conversation of client funds totaling approximately $1.8 million between 2015 and 2019. The respondent also settled a client’s case without their authority and procured in the contingency fee agreement a power of attorney to disburse settlement proceeds without the client’s permission. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(c), 1.2, 1.8(e)(3), 1.8(k),1.15(a)(d)(f)(g), 5.3, 8.1(a)(b), and 8.4(a)(c).
4. William M. Magee. The board recommended that the court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year, with this suspension to run consecutively to the respondent’s suspension in a separate discipline matter. The respondent assisted a non-lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. In doing so, the respondent violated Rule 5.5(a), 5.5(e)(3)(v), and 8.4(a).

LADB Hearing Committees

1. W. Glenn Soileau. Hearing Committee # 22 recommended that the court suspended the respondent for a period of three years. The respondent drove while impaired which was observed by a law enforcement officer and confirmed by respondent’s post-arrest blood test showing the presence of Methamphetamine, Benzodiazepines, Alprazolam, Diazepam, Oxazepam, Temazepam, Cannabinoids (THC), Tramadol, and Cyclobenzaprine. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(b).
2. Stephen Sterling, III. Hearing Committee # 62 recommended that the court suspend the respondent from the practice of law for two years. The respondent failed to reduce a contingency fee agreement to writing, failed to timely respond to discovery requests, failed to communicate with opposing counsel, failed to expeditiously complete the settlement of a matter, and provided his client dishonest answers as to the reason for the delay in her case. The respondent also collected a $2,500 fee, but failed to provide any meaningful representation or provide a refund after being terminated. The respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC’s investigation of the matter. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(c), 1.5(f)(5), 3.2, 8.1(c), and 8.4(c).
3. Robert William Hjortsberg. Hearing Committee #12 recommended that the court suspend the respondent from the practice of la for six months with all but two months deferred. The respondent admitted that he failed to file his tax returns for the years of 2017 and 2018. In doing so, the respondent admitted that his conduct violated Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c). Further, the hearing committee found that the ODC did not carry its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 8.4(a), and 8.4(d). The evidence established that, at the criminal trial of his client, the respondent declined to participate in the trial after his client voluntarily absented himself.
4. Donald R. Dobbins. Hearing Committee #1 recommended that the petitioner’s application for reinstatement be denied.
5. Bonnie B. Humphery. Hearing Committee #10 recommended that the petitioner’s petition for readmission to the practice of law be granted.
6. Flynn Kempff Smith. Hearing Committee #55 recommended that the court suspend the respondent from the practice of law for two years. The respondent practiced law while ineligible and engaged in the criminal conduct involving DWI and drug possession. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(c), 5.5(a), and 8.4(a).