These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders or Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommendations published during the month of May 2021.
Louisiana Supreme Court
- Vincent Wilkins, Jr. The court suspended the respondent for ninety-days, with sixty days deferred. The respondent failed to provide competent representation to a client in the District of Columbia. The court imposed reciprocal discipline based upon discipline imposed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
- Nicholas Anthony Bellard. The court adjudicated the respondent guilty of additional rule violations which the court will consider if and when the respondent seeks readmission to the practice of law. The respondent neglected his clients’ legal matters, failed to communicate with his clients, failed to refund unearned fees, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).
- David S. Scalia. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year, fully deferred, for violating Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(b). The court did not describe the conduct that led to discipline.
- Kimuel Wayne Lee. The court conditionally reinstated the respondent to the practice of law. The court conditioned reinstatement on the respondent submitting a certain fee dispute to the LSBA Fee Dispute Resolution Program and completing an additional ten hours of mandatory continuing legal education.
- Donald R. Dobbins. The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for three years. The respondent had a history of DWI arrests, failed to provide competent representation to a client. neglected a legal matter, failed to adequately communicate with a client, including failing to adequately explain the fee arrangement, and failed to account for and/or refund an unearned fee. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c).
- Kathleen M. Wilson. The court suspended respondent for one year and one day, with all but ninety days deferred. Respondent had a significant unresolved substance abuse issue and engaged in the criminal conduct of driving while intoxicated. In doing so, respondent violated Rule 8.4(b).
- Cecelia F. Abadie. The court suspended the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent failed to provide competent representation to a client and made false statements about the integrity of a judge. In doing so, respondent violated Rule 1.1 and 8.2.
Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board
- George A. Flournoy. The board recommended that the court revoke the respondent’s probation and make executory the previously deferred portion of his one-year suspension. The respondent engaged in further violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct while on probation. Specifically, the respondent directed his assistant to falsify an affidavit and to present it to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Further, the respondent communicated untruthful information to opposing counsel and presented false information to a tribunal.
LADB Hearing Committees
- William Henderson. Hearing Committee # 36 recommended that the court readmit the respondent to the practice of law. However, based on the offense for which the court originally disbarred him and his two failed attempts at readmission, the Committee recommended that the respondent have a monitor audit his practice to ensure that he engages in sound practices when handling client funds.
- Carl Joseph Rachal. Hearing Committee # 5 recommended that the court suspend the respondent for sixty days, with no deferral. The respondent failed to timely file an opposition to a Motion for Summary Judgment or to appear at the hearing on that motion, failed to promptly inform her client that summary judgment had been granted and failed to promptly inform her client of the reasons for dismissal of the client’s case, intentionally failed to promptly disclose his errors related to the Summary Judgment to the client, and repeatedly engaged in communications with his client while intentionally withholding case-critical information from her. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b), and 8.4.
- Patrick C. Morrow. Hearing Committee # 19 recommended that the court dismiss all formal charges. The ODC had charged the respondent with failing to submit an advertisement in Super Lawyers magazine to the LSBA for preapproval.
- George Randy Trelles. Hearing Committee # 15 revised its previously issued report recommending that the court suspend the respondent for one year and one day with six months deferred, subject to certain conditions. One of those conditions was the respondent’s continued compliance with the terms of his contract with the Judges’ and Lawyers’ Assistance Program. The respondent, however, violated the terms of his agreement with JLAP. As a result, the Committee revised its former recommendation and recommended that the court suspend respondent for one year and one day.
Please follow and like us: