May 2023 Discipline

Posted on by

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

Lousiana Supreme Court

  1. Maime Lenoria Franklin. The court suspended respondent for a period of one year and one day. The respondent failed to reduce a contingency fee to writing, failed to communicate with a client, neglected a legal matter, failed to provide the client with her file upon request, and failed to file a motion to withdraw after being terminated by a client. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(c), 1.16(d), 3.2, and 8.4(a).
  2. Maya Guntz Flowers. The court granted a joint motion to extend probation for a period of one additional year. Prior to the expiration of the probationary period, the parties uncovered issues in prior trust account audits. The court previously suspended the respondent for a period of one year and one day, fully deferred, subject to a two-year period of supervised probation, based on allegations of mismanaging her client’s trust account.
  3. Meredith Wiggins Benoit. The court suspended the respondent for a period of three years. The respondent committed felony theft and failure to appear and/or pay associated fines in connection to speeding violations. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c).
  4. William A. Roe. The court suspended the respondent for a period of one year. The respondent notarized three affidavits not signed in his presence and failed to take remedial action to remove the affidavits from the record. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
  5. Clint L. Pierson, Jr. The court disbarred the respondent. The respondent entered into improper business transactions with three clients and failed to advise his clients to pursue independent legal representation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.8(a), 2.1, 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).
  6. Charles L. McCollum. The court granted the respondent’s petition for permanent resignation from the practice of law. Prior to filing the petition for permanent resignation from the practice of law, the respondent pleaded guilty to felony obscenity.
  7. Glenn E. Diaz. The court suspended the respondent on an interim basis.
  8. Henry L. Klein. The court suspended the respondent for a period of one year and one day. The respondent delayed the court by attempting to remove the case to a federal court without a legal or factual basis, made defamatory and personal remarks to opposing counsel and the district court judge, disregarded the court’s filing order, falsely accused opposing counsel of aiding and abetting criminal activity without factual basis, and communicated with members of the opposing counsel’s firm not involved in litigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 3.5(a), 3.5(b), 3.5(d), 4.4(a), 8.2(a), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
  9. Chester J. Rothkamm. The court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for a period of one year and one day, with the entirety of the suspension deferred subject to a two-year supervised probation. Prior to filing the joint petition, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent mishandled his client trust account and failed to personally direct or supervise electronic transfers from the client trust account.
  10. Corey J. Orgeron. The court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for a period of one year and one day, with all but one month deferred subject to a two-year probation. Prior to filing the joint petition, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent engaged in a physical altercation with a client, resulting in the respondent’s conviction of simple battery.
  11. Justin Taft Merritt. The court disbarred the respondent. The respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness when representing a client, failed to timely remit funds to a client, failed to communicate with a client, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(d), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(b).

LADB Hearing Committee

  1. Adam Granville Young. Hearing Committee #7 recommended that the court suspend the respondent for a period of one year and one day, with all but 90 days deferred. The respondent failed to obtain a client’s informed consent before entering into a business transaction, and failed to advise a client to seek independent legal counsel prior to entering into a business relationship. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.8(a) and 8.4(a).
  2. Gregory James Sauzer. Hearing Committee #23 recommended that the court suspend the respondent for a period of six months, with all but 30 days deferred. The respondent failed to file his tax returns for the years 2015 through 2018. In doing so, the respondent violated rules 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c).

Please follow and like us:
Tweet