May 2025 Discipline

These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders of Louisiana Attorney Discipline Board recommendations published during the month of May 2025.

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. Frank G. DeSalvo. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for six months, deferred in its entirety. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent mishandled his client trust account.
2. Tiffany Gosselin Moore. The Court granted the joint petition for transfer to disability inactive status.
3. Paul Arenz Lemke, III. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended there respondent for one year and one day, with all but six months of the suspension deferred. The ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent knowingly made false statements of fact to a tribunal, improperly notarized affidavits, instructed his staff to falsely witness affidavits, engaged in dishonest conduct, and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Respondent and the ODC then submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which the parties stipulated that respondent’s conduct violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
4. Byron C. Williams. The Court granted the petitioner’s petition for reinstatement.
5. Jonas Mark Robinson. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day, with all but thirty days deferred. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent mishandled his client trust account and practiced law while ineligible to do so.
6. Shane Austin Jordan. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day, deferred in its entirety. Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC and the respondent stipulated that respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(b).
7. Dalonshia Shunette Thomas. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for six months, deferred in its entirety. Respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline in which respondent admitted that her conduct violated Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.15(d), and 1.15(f)
8. Michael L. Cave. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for three years. The respondent admitted his conduct violated Rule 8.4(d).

Louisiana Attorney Discipline Board

1. Donald Dobbins. The board recommended that the Court grant the respondent’s petition for reinstatement. The respondent had been suspended from the practice of law for three years, with the suspension retroactive to an earlier disciplinary action from 2020. The respondent filed his petition for reinstatement on October 22, 2024, and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed concurrences supporting the petition on both January 16, 2025, and May 1, 2025, after the Court remanded the matter back to the Board for further proceedings. The Adjudicative Committee Chair approved the petition and recommended that it be granted.

LADB Hearing Committees.

1. Dounnisei Kuo Gbalazeh. Hearing Committee #26 recommended that the respondent have her period of disbarment extended to November 24, 2030 (for a total of ten years from her original disbarment). The respondent was previously disbarred in November 2020 and was ineligible to practice law since 2008 for failure to pay annual Louisiana State Bar Association membership dues. While ineligible, she practiced law in multiple immigration matters in 2014, 2015, and 2017, accepted a $1,300 fee from Mr. Traore for immigration services which she did not perform, failed to refund the unearned fee despite repeated demands, failed to cooperate with the ODC’s investigation, and failed to comply with Court rules regarding annual registration and timely notification of address changes. The committee noted that the victim was vulnerable due to his ongoing immigration status and that the respondent’s conversion of the client’s funds constituted criminal theft. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(c), 1.5(f)(5), 5.5(a) & (e)(3), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).
2. Tristan Patrick Gilley. Hearing Committee #17 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent was appointed as a public defender to represent Mr. Tevin Turner in a criminal matter but failed to reasonably communicate with his client about different legal matters and failed to comply with the client’s written request for a copy of his entire criminal file, despite being requested to do so in May 2022. When the client filed a complaint with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in August 2023, the respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC’s investigation by not responding to multiple letters, emails, and phone calls over several months. The respondent was previously suspended in December 2023 for six months (with all but ninety days deferred) for similar misconduct involving neglecting a legal matter, failing to communicate with a client, and failing to cooperate with ODC’s investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.4(a)(4), 1.16(d), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).
3. Christopher H. Carbine. Hearing Committee #9 recommended dismissal of all charges despite finding “technical violations” of Rules 1.1 and 1.4(a)(3). The respondent, along with co-counsel Leo Caillier III, was hired by Ms. Emma Hutcherson and Ms. Angela Williams to handle wrongful termination/employment matters in October 2021. In the Hutcherson matter, the respondent and Caillier failed to provide Ms. Hutcherson with her crucial EEOC “right to sue” letter dated June 3, 2022, which provided ninety days to file suit. After Caillier and the respondent had a falling out in June 2022, Ms. Hutcherson was unable to contact either attorney about her case status, ultimately hired new counsel (Mr. Willard Brown), but her claim was never filed before the deadline expired. In the Williams matter, while the suit was filed timely, Ms. Williams was unable to contact the attorneys regarding a settlement offer during the same period. The committee found the respondent’s violations were technical in nature, done without intent or dishonesty, caused no actual harm to the complainants, and that the real culpability lay with co-counsel Caillier and subsequent counsel Brown. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1 and 1.4(a)(3).
4. Salvador J. Randazzo. Hearing Committee #62 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years with 18 months deferred. The respondent, who was a litigant in multiple cases assigned to Judge Darren Roy’s docket, made a series of inappropriate telephone calls to Judge Roy’s office and court staff between May 2021 and May 2021, sometimes leaving rambling voicemails and engaging in one-way legal arguments with staff members. The respondent also filed multiple pleadings in various courts containing false statements and accusations about Judge Roy’s qualifications and integrity, including accusations that the judge was biased, corrupt, and engaged in misconduct. In his pleadings and communications, the respondent made derogatory statements about parties involved in litigation, discussed underlying litigation inappropriately, questioned judges’ actions, and made statements he knew to be false or with reckless disregard concerning the integrity of Judge Roy and other judicial officials. The committee found the respondent acted intentionally to obtain more favorable treatment from appellate courts and caused actual harm by impugning judicial integrity and attempting to manipulate the judicial process. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 3.5(a)(b), 8.2(a), 8.4(a)(d), Louisiana Supreme Court Rule VII §7, and Louisiana Supreme Court Rule Part G §11.