May 2014 Discipline

Louisiana State SealThese Louisiana lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders or Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommendations made public during the month of May 2014.

Louisiana Supreme Court

  1. Hon. Janice G. Clark. The court rejected a recommendation from the Judiciary Commission finding that the judge’s conduct did not warrant sanctions. The Judiciary Commission had recommended that the judge be publicly reprimanded for, among other things, addressing a plaintiff on the record without her lawyer present.
  2. Sean D. Alfortish. The court ordered that the respondent, a former magistrate judge, be permanently disbarred from the practice of law. The respondent admitted that he and others conspired to rig the outcome of the 2008 Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association elections by preparing and casting falsified election ballots. He also admitted that he converted funds from a medical trust for his own benefit under the pretense of paying administrative expenses.
  3. David J. Mitchell. The court ordered that the respondent be permanently disbarred. The respondent charged clients $23,212 for travel and case-related expenses that the LADB found that he did not actually incur.
  4. Otha Curtis Nelson, Sr. The court ordered that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years, with all but one year of the suspension deferred. The court also ordered that following the active portion of the suspension, the respondent should be put on supervised probation for two years. The majority of the fourteen counts against the respondent involved mishandling his trust account.
  5. Clarence T. Nalls, Jr. The court ordered that the respondent be permanently disbarred, and it also ordered that the respondent provide an accounting to a former client and make full restitution to him. The respondent failed to provide a client with his file or an accounting of insurance proceeds, and he practiced law while suspended from doing so. The respondent had a prior discipline history for filing frivolous lawsuits and other misconduct.
  6. Elizabeth Ashley Brunet-Robert. The court ordered that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years, retroactive to the date of her interim suspension. The respondent had a history of legal issues. She was arrested for possession of methamphetamine, she issued sixteen checks drawn from her brother’s checking account without his consent, she sold an oxycodone tablet to an undercover police officer, she pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance, she was arrested and charged with being a principal to monetary instrument abuse and a principal to theft, and she was found in contempt for failing to appear in court.
  7. Barry S. Ranshi. The court ordered that the respondent’s conditional admission to the practice of law be revoked. It also ordered that the respondent not be allowed to re-apply for admission until he can demonstrate a one-year period of sobriety and compliance with the terms and conditions of a contract with the Lawyers’ Assistance Program (“LAP”).
  8. Judge Yolanda King. The court ordered that Judge King be disqualified from exercising any judicial function during the pendency of criminal proceedings lodged against her for filing false election-related documents.
  9. Johnny S. Anzalone. The court ordered that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis, pending further orders of the court. The court gave no reasons for its order. Judges Weimer, Knoll, and Hughes dissented, stating that they would order a hearing prior to a determination of whether or not interim suspension should be imposed on the respondent. Dissent by Weimer, J. Dissent by Knoll, J. Dissent by Hughes, J.
  10. Devin W. Morris. The court ordered that the respondent’s petition for consent discipline be accepted, and it ordered that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a year and a day, all deferred. The respondent violated several rules of professional conduct, including Rules 1.3, 1.4(a)(3)(4), 1.5(f)(3), 1.16, 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).
  11. Craig Alan Davis. The court ordered that the respondent’s petition for consent discipline be accepted, and it ordered that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months, all deferred. The respondent failed to timely remit funds to a third party, and failed to provide full disclosure to a court about the disbursal of funds.
  12. James L. Hilburn. The court ordered that the respondent’s petition for consent discipline be accepted, and it ordered that the respondent be publicly reprimanded. The respondent filed a petition for damages for defamation against a defendant based on the defendant’s filing of a disciplinary complaint with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
  13. Darrell K. Hickman. The court ordered that the petition for consent discipline be accepted, and it ordered that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a year, with the entire suspension deferred. The respondent misled his client concerning the status of her legal matter.
  14. Amanda Luna. The court ordered that the respondent’s petition for voluntary resignation from the practice of law be granted.
  15. James H. Carter, Jr. The court ordered that the two-year probationary period against the respondent be deferred until the respondent returns to active membership status with the Louisiana Bar Association. The court also ordered that the respondent must immediately notify the Office of Disciplinary Counsel upon his request to return to active status. The probationary period was ordered after it was determined that the respondent practiced law while ineligible to do so. During the probationary period, the respondent became an inactive member of the Louisiana Bar Association.
  16. Kenneth S. Hill. The court ordered that the respondent’s request for permanent resignation in lieu of discipline be granted, and it ordered that the respondent be permanently prohibited from practicing law in Louisiana. The respondent was arrested and charged with a DWI, and he had been arrested and charged with the same offense on two previous occasions.
  17. Craig T. Broussard. The court ordered that the petitioner be immediately reinstated to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to a five-year period of probation. The petitioner was previously suspended from the practice of law for three years, with all but one year and one day deferred, for creating a false document and providing it to his client without advising that it was a fabrication. The court found that the petitioner had complied with the reinstatement criteria.
  18. Michael A. Fenasci. The court ordered that the petitioner be immediately reinstated to the practice of law in Louisiana. He was previously suspended from the practice of law for three years for improperly obtaining a loan from his client, improperly advancing living expenses to his client, and commingling and converting client funds. The court found that the petitioner complied with the reinstatement criteria.
  19. Michael Kevin Powell. The court ordered that the petitioner be immediately reinstated to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to conditions set forth in the hearing committee’s report. The petitioner had been suspended from the practice of law for a year and a day after being arrested and charged with three counts of possession of a Schedule I controlled dangerous substance.
  20. J. Renee Martin. The court ordered that the respondent’s petition for consent discipline be accepted, and it ordered that the respondent be publicly reprimanded. The respondent admitted to failing to return a client file upon request.
  21. Kenner O. Miller, Jr. The court ordered that the respondent be permanently disbarred, and it ordered that he be permanently prohibited from being readmitted to the practice of law. The respondent commingled, converted, and/or misappropriated client and third-party funds in the amount of $208,260.83. The respondent had a prior disciplinary history for neglecting client matters, failing to communicate with clients, engaging in dishonest conduct, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
  22. David P. Buehler. The court ordered that the respondent be reciprocally suspended from the practice of law for six months based upon discipline imposed in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
  23. C. Hearn Taylor. The court ordered that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a year and a day, and it also ordered that the respondent make restitution of $2,500 plus interest. The respondent accepted a legal fee from a client, and he subsequently neglected the matter and refused to communicate with the client. Note that Mr. Taylor died a few months after the order.
  24. Justice of the Peace Mary Foret. The court ordered that the respondent be suspended from office for a period of sixty days, without pay. The respondent engaged in numerous ex parte communications with the parties concerning the substantive issues in the case, engaged in improper independent investigation into the background of the case, and failed to recuse herself. She also allowed a constable to run the court proceedings and participate in her decision-making process.
  25. David J. Motter. The court ordered that the respondent be transferred to disability inactive status, and it ordered that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel may seek the appointment of a trustee to protect the interests of the respondent’s clients.
  26. Christopher D. Weddle. The court ordered that the respondent’s petition for consent discipline be accepted, and it ordered that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three months. The respondent failed to keep a client informed of her case and then executed an agreement contrary to the stated objectives of representation without first obtaining her informed consent.

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

  1. Trent Anthony Garrett, Sr. The board recommended that the respondent be suspended for a year and a day. Also, based upon his failure to cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in the investigation of this matter, the board recommended that the respondent be found guilty of additional violations to be considered when and if he applies for reinstatement to the practice of law. The respondent failed to file a suit for his client in the appropriate jurisdiction before the applicable statute of limitations expired, and he failed to communicate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel when the office contacted him regarding the malpractice suit his client filed against him.
  2. Stacy Lynn Morris. The board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a year and a day, and it also recommended that the respondent be ordered to pay restitution to her clients. The respondent failed to place unearned funds in a trust account, failed to account for legitimate costs, failed to refund an unearned fee when the representation terminated, commingled client funds, misled the hearing committee as to the existence of her trust account, and failed to account for unearned funds.
  3. John Brewster Ohle, III. The board recommended that the respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law. The respondent was convicted in federal court on charges of conspiring to defraud the United States and Bank One, and tax evasion.
  4. Troy A. Humphrey. The board recommended that the respondent be publicly reprimanded for engaging in professional misconduct. The respondent failed to return unearned fees to clients.

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board Hearing Committees

  1. Gregory S. Duhy. Hearing Committee No. 12 recommended that the respondent be suspended for a year and a day, with all but two weeks of the suspension period deferred. The respondent failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, and he also failed to cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in its investigation of matters before it.
  2. Kathleen Morrissey Delaney. Hearing Committee No. 31 recommended that the formal charges against the respondent be dismissed. The committee found that the respondent did not knowingly make a false statement regarding her possession of a ring owned by her employer’s former client.
  3. Eric Anthony Wright. Hearing Committee No. 24 determined that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel failed to carry its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by offering into evidence a video recording whose veracity the respondent questioned.
  4. Phyllis A. Southall. Hearing Committee No. 25 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years, with one year and 364 days deferred. The committee also determined that the respondent should make restitution to the clients she offended. The committee recommended that if the respondent were to reapply for admission to the practice of law after her suspension, she should be on probation for three years. The committee based its decision on a number of violations, including the respondent’s failure to finalize a divorce for a client, her failure to notify a client that his judgment of divorce was potentially invalid, her failure to notify a court that a rule for divorce contained false information, and her failure to notify a client of her potential malpractice.
  5. Ali Zito Shields. Hearing Committee No. 01 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of eighteen months, and it also recommended that she be ordered to pay for the arbitration of a fee dispute and provide restitution to the complainants. The respondent failed to return an unearned fee to her client.
Please follow and like us: