October 2022 Discipline

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

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. Cynthia Sternberg. The court granted a petition to transfer the petitioner from interim disability inactive status to active status. Further, the court granted the petitioner’s request to permanently resign from the practice of law in lieu of discipline.
2. Scott W. McQuaig. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and disbarred the respondent retroactive to March 6, 2019, the date of his interim suspension. Prior to filing the petition for consent discipline, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent settled his clients’ cases without their knowledge or consent, forged his clients’ signatures on settlement documents and checks, converted client and third-party funds, and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law after he was placed on interim suspension.
3. Michael L. Hebert. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. Prior to the filing of the petition for consent discipline, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent failed to timely remit funds to a third-party medical provider.
4. Steven W. Hale. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for six months, deferred in its entirety. Prior to the filing of the petition for consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent engaged in a conflict of interest involving two concurrent clients.
5. Antonio Birotte. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for a period of six months, deferred in its entirety. Prior to the filing of the petition for consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent failed to reduce a contingency fee agreement to writing and used his operating account to deposit and disburse client funds.
6. Michael Thomas Joseph, Jr. The court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for eighteen months, with six months deferred. Prior to the filing of the petition for consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent mishandled his client trust account, resulting in multiple instances of commingling and conversion of client funds, failed to abide by a disciplinary board order to attend the LSBA’s Trust Accounting School, failed to reduce contingency fee agreements to writing, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation.
7. Sonjia Delcenia Kirk. The court granted a joint petition for interim suspension.
8. David Brian Green. The court granted a petition to transfer the respondent to active status.
9. Dewanna Latasha Stewart. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year, retroactive to April 6, 2022, the date of her interim suspension. Prior to the filing of the petition for consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent was arrested on a charge of aggravated battery involving her husband.
10. Donovan Raymond Francis. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. Prior to the filing of the petition for consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, and failed to appropriately withdraw from a representation.
11. Bryce Jefferson Denny. 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 the filing of the petition for consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, and failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation.
12. John Owen Shirley, Jr. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. Prior to the filing of the joint petition for consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent engaged in the practice of law during a period of ineligibility.
13. Claudia I. Rush. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. Prior to the filing of the joint petition for consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent engaged in the practice of law during a period of ineligibility.
14. Karen Ruth Carter Peterson. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and disbarred the respondent, retroactive to August 18, 2022, the date of her interim suspension. Prior to the filing of the joint petition for consent discipline, the respondent, a former elected official, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in connection with her use of state political party and campaign funds to support her gambling addiction.
15. Rudy W. Gorrell, Jr. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for a period of six months, deferred in its entirety. Prior to the filing of the joint petition for consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent mishandled his client trust account.
16. Mark R. Simmons. The court granted a petition for permanent resignation from the practice of law in lieu of discipline.
17. Paul A. Lapeyrouse. The court suspended the respondent for one year, with six months deferred. The respondent revealed confidential client information and engaged in a conflict of interest in connection with a divorce proceeding. Further, the respondent filed a petition for defamation by libel and slander against the complainant in the disciplinary proceeding. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.6, 1.7(a)(2), and Supreme Court Rule XIX, §§ 9(a) and12A.
18. Jarvis J. Claiborne. The court suspended the respondent for six months, with all but thirty days of the suspension deferred. The respondent neglected a legal matter, resulting in the dismissal of a client’s lawsuit due to abandonment, failed to communicate with the client and opposing counsel, failed to advise the client of the potential malpractice against him, and knowingly made a false statement of fact when responding to the client’s disciplinary complaint. In doing so, the respondent violated Rule 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 8.1(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).
19. Stavros Panagoulopoulos. The court suspended the respondent for eighteen months, with all but six months of the suspension deferred. The respondent failed to act with diligence, failed to reasonably communicate with his clients, failed to safeguard client property, failed to properly handle funds in his trust account, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rule 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f), 1.16(d), 8.1(b), 8.1(c), and 8.4(c).

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

1. Jason C. Bruzik. The board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year, fully deferred. Respondent charged an unreasonable fee, deposited funds advanced by his client for legal work to be performed on an hourly basis into his operating account, failed to maintain client funds in his trust account. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.5(a), 1.5(f)(3), 1.15(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).

LADB Hearing Committees