October 2023 Discipline

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

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. Julie Michael Udoessien. 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 the filing of the joint petition for consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent was arrested for driving while intoxicated and having an open alcoholic beverage container in her vehicle.
2. Stephen Sterling, III. The court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, with all but six months of the suspension deferred. 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, failed to reduce a contingency fee agreement to writing, failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation, and misled a client about the status of her settlement. The respondent also failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation.
3. Benjamin N. Gibson. The court granted the joint petition for transfer to disability inactive status.
4. Laura T. Marler. The court granted the petition for interim suspension for threat of harm filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and suspended the respondent from the practice of law.
5. Derrick K. Williams. The court disbarred the respondent. The respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, charged an unreasonable fee, failed to explain a fee arrangement to a client, failed to reduce a contingency fee agreement to writing, forged a client’s endorsement on a settlement check, failed to pay settlement proceeds to a client and the client’s third-party medical provider, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 1.5(b), 1.5(c), 1.15(d), 8.1(c), and 8.4(c).
6. Raleigh Lawrence Ohlmeyer, III. The court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day, deferred in its entirety. Prior to the filing of the joint petition for consent discipline, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent failed to place an advance deposit into his client trust account and failed to timely refund an unearned fee.
7. Laila Parvizian Braswell. The court granted the 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 joint 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 withdraw from a representation she determined she could not handle.
8. Jeffery Dee Blue. The court disbarred the respondent. The respondent abandoned his law practice, resulting in the neglect of three client matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to refund their unearned fees, failed to return their files, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15(a), 1.16(d), 8.1(c), and 8.4(c).
9. Sophia Juliana Johnson. The court granted the joint petition for interim suspension.
10. Jaqueline A. Scott. The court granted the 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 failed to comply with the lawyer advertising rules. The respondent admitted that she violated Rule 7.2(a)(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
11. Carl Henry Franklin. The court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for six months, deferred in its entirety. The ODC investigated allegations that the respondent mishandled his client trust account. The respondent admitted that his conduct violated Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.15(d) and 1.15(f).
12. Zachary Ryan Moffett. The court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and adjudged the respondent guilty of additional violations warranting discipline that will be considered in the event that he applies for readmission from his disbarment.

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

1. Karl J. Koch. The board recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day, deferred in its entirety. The respondent kept personal funds in his trust account and used his trust account to pay his office expenses or personal debts. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.15(a), (b), (c) and (f), and 8.4(a) and (c).

LADB Hearing Committees

1. David Motter. Hearing Committee # 55 recommended that the petitioner be reinstated to the practice of law.
2. Desha Gay. Hearing Committee # 15 recommended that the court suspended the respondent for six months, fully deferred. The respondent failed to provide the full text of Rule 1.8 to the client who is to receive financial assistance, failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation, and misrepresented the status of the divorce petition to her client. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.8(e), 8.1(c) and 8.4(a) and (c).
3. Michael S. Brandner. Hearing Committee #45 recommended that the formal charges be dismissed. The ODC alleged that the respondent improperly obtained in the initial engagement agreement a power of attorney to endorse and negotiate financial instrument given in settlement of the clients claims. The committee found that the respondent did not violate Rules 1.4, 1.16(d), 8.4(a), or 8.4(c). Although the committee noted that there may have been a technical violation of Rule 1.8(k), the court found that no sanction was warranted.
4. Gerald F. Palmer. The court recommended that the readmit the petitioner to the practice of law.