November 2023 Discipline

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

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. Jonathan B. Andry. The court granted the petition to initiate reciprocal discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year. The respondent entered into improper referral agreements. In doing so, the respondent violated Rule 8.4(d).
2. Frank John Labruzzo. The court granted the petition for interim suspension.
3. Mark Jeffrey Neal. The court suspended the respondent for one year and one day, deferring six months of the suspension. The respondent physically attacked a restaurant owner at his place of business after the owner contacted the respondent to inquire about the whereabouts of respondent’s son who worked at the restaurant as a bus boy and was late in reporting for his shift. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(b).
4. Tim L. Fields. The court suspended the respondent for three years. The respondent failed to properly supervise his non-lawyer staff, resulting in the conversion of approximately $4.2 million belonging to third parties, intentionally continued to convert third-party funds totaling approximately $1.8 million in order to pay older third party debts, failed to maintain a trust account for several years, lied on his trust account disclosure statements that he did not handle client funds, allowed non0-lawyers to sign trust account checks, charged clients for inappropriate office expenses, settled a client’s personal injury claim without the client’s knowledge or consent, and lied to the ODC during its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(c), 1,8(e)(3), 1.8(k), 1.15(a), 1.15(f), 1.15(g), 5.3, and 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).
5. David Band, Jr. The court suspended the respondent for six months with all but thirty days deferred. The respondent communicated with a person known to be represented by counsel and made a false statement to the ODC during its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 4.2(a) and 8.1(a).
6. Christoper James Jenkins. The court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent made false representations to a court and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The court suspended the respondent for six months, with all but 90 days of the suspension deferred. Respondent admitted that his conduct violated Rules 3.3(a), 3.3(d), 4.1(b), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d).
7. Brett W. Cain. The court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline. Prior to the filing of the petition for consent discipline, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent caused an automobile accident, resulting in serios injury, left the scene and was arrested for hit and run. Respondent admitted that he violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(b).
8. Marsha A. Willis. The court granted a joint petition for transfer to disability inactive status.

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

1. Kenneth M. Plaisance. The board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years and one day, with one year of the suspension deferred. Respondent failed to fully disclose or acknowledge to his clients the possible effect his conflict of interest could have had on them. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.4, 1.7(a), 3.1, and 8.4(d).
2. Gregory Swafford. The board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent did not cooperate with the ODC in its investigation, unreasonably asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege at the sworn statement and the hearing in this matter, and represented to the complainant that he would repay her money, but he never did so. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.1(b), 8.1(c), 8.4(a) and 8.4(c).
3. Samuel Robert Aucoin. The board recommended that respondent’s suspension be extended such that his total suspension is for a three-year period. Respondent was paid a fee of $800.00 to obtain a divorce for Mr. Comeaux and that he successfully performed services resulting in the judge orally granting the divorce in court. However, Respondent then failed to perfect the ruling by filing and having the judge sign a final judgment of divorce. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.5(f)(5), 3.4(c), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c).

LADB Hearing Committees

1. Jami D. Pellerin. Hearing Committee #37 recommended that the formal charges be dismissed. The ODC alleged that the respondent failed to diligently represent a client, failed to communicate with a client, failed to refund an unearned fee, and made a false statement to the ODC.
2. Richard Forrest White. Hearing Committee #31 recommended that the new rule violations deemed admitted be considered if and when the respondent seeks readmission to the practice of law. Respondent failed to communicate or contact his clients and failed with the ODC.
3. Jesse P. Lagarde. Hearing Committee #28 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months. Respondent did not communicate with his client in a timely manner, meet with his client, or withdraw from the representation of the client, and/or comply with reasonable requests from the client. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a)(2-4) & (b), 1.16(a), 3.2, and 8.4(a).
4. Sonya Eloyace Hall. Hearing Committee #29 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months to be served consecutive to the suspension respondent is currently serving. Respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence, failed to reasonably consult with the client and keep her informed, failed to follow the law regarding withdrawal from representation, and failed to expedite the client’s litigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, and 3.2.
5. George Allen Roth Walsh. Hearing Committee #2 recommended that the respondent be permanently disbarred. The respondent practiced law while disbarred. Respondent also accepted a fee from a client while disbarred. In doing so, he violated Rules 1.16, 5.5, 8.1, and 8.4.