November 2022 Discipline

These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders or Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommendations published during the month of November 2022.

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. Christopher Szeto. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for six months, fully deferred. Prior to entering into the consent discipline, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent filed a frivolous pleading, failed to take remedial action despite repeated efforts by the trial court, and was ultimately found to be in constructive contempt of court.
2. L. Paul Hood, Jr. The court granted a petition for the voluntary resignation from the practice of law.
3. Frank A. Marullo, Jr. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the responded. The responded pleaded guilty to careless operation of a vehicle.
4. Amanda G. Clark. The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with the client, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(a), 1.3, 1.4, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
5. Michael Treaman Bell. The court prohibited the respondent from petitioning the court for readmission until five years have passed from the finality of the court’s judgment. The respondent appeared in court on behalf of a client following the respondent’s disbarment. Further, the respondent did not inform his client that he was disbarred and did not refund an unearned portion of the fee. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(e), 5.5(a), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d).
6. Paul John Barker. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and extended the respondents period of probation for one year. Prior to entering into the consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent failed to disburse settlement funds owed to a third party and instead gave those funds to his client.
7. Christopher Jon Stahulk. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, deferred in its entirety. Prior to entering into consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent mishandled his client trust account.
8. Eve Sarco Reardon. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for the practice of law for one year and one day, with all but six months of the suspension deferred. Prior to entering into consent discipline. the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent improperly notarized three affidavits and signed her name to documents finalizing a client’s settlement after the client passed away.
9. Etta Kay Hearn. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. Prior to entering into the consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent engaged in conduct constituting a conflict of interest.
10. Monique Nicole Green. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for six months, deferred in its entirety. Prior to entering into consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent mishandled her client trust account.
11. Rita Kay Bacot. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day, deferred in its entirety. Prior to entering the consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent mismanaged her client trust account.
12. Ronald Sidney Haley, Jr. The court remanded to the disciplinary board, which it directed to conduct an evidentiary hearing, and make a recommendation as to whether the deferred portion of the respondent’s suspension should be made executory.
13. David A. Capasso. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day, with all but thirty days of the suspension deferred. Prior to entering into consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent mishandled his client trust account.

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

1. Erin L. Tyler. The board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for eighteen months, with all but one year deferred. The respondent was arrested for a DWI and failed to truthfully disclose information to the JLAP evaluator regarding prior drug usage. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(b).
2. Carl Joseph Rachal. The board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice for sixty days, fully deferred. The respondent failed to communicate with his client regarding the filing of a motion for summary judgment, failed to act with reasonable promptness and diligence, and failed to advise his client that the motion for summary judgment had been granted because he did not file a response or appear at the hearing. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a),1.4(b), and 8.4(c).
3. Edward J. McCloskey. The board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years, with all but one year deferred. The respondent collected funds from the clerk of court owed to his clients and converted that money to his personal use. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.15(a) and 8.4(c).
4. Richard Forrest White. The board recommended that the court disbar the respondent. The respondent filed no action on behalf of his client despite repeated assurances that he had done so, was arrested for possession of controlled dangerous substances, failed to produce a client’s file upon request, and failed to cooperate with the ODC. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 3.4(c), 8.1(c), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).

LADB Hearing Committees

1. W. Glenn Soileau. Hearing Committee # 31 recommended that the court permanently disbar the respondent. The respondent drove while intoxicated, paid for the hotel room of a prostitute, and interfered 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).
2. Neil Dennis William Montgomery. Hearing Committee #14 recommended that the court reinstate the petitioner to the practice of law.
3. Quiana Marie Hunt. Hearing Committee #10 recommended that the court suspend the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent failed to complete her mandatory continuing legal education requirements, failed to pay her disciplinary costs and assessments associated with a prior disciplinary proceeding, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(b), 1.1(c), 8.1(b), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).
4. Samuel Robert Aucoin. Hearing Committee # 62 recommended that the court suspend the respondent from the practice of law for three years. The court further recommended that the suspension run concurrently with the suspension the court imposed in the respondent’s prior discipline case. The respondent failed to use reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, failed to communicate with his client, failed to place funds in dispute into trust, issued worthless checks, and failed to cooperate with the ODC. In doing so, the respondent violated 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 3.4(c), 8.1(c), 8.4(a) and 8.4(b).
5. Keelus Renardo Miles. Hearing Committee #26 recommended that the court suspend the respondent from the practice of law for two years. The respondent mismanaged his trust account, improperly endorsed checks, failed to maintain a written contingency fee agreement, improperly notarized documents and failed to cooperate with the ODC. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.5(c), 1.15(a), 1.15(d), 8.1, 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).