October 2024 Discipline

Posted on by

These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders of Louisiana Attorney Discipline Board recommendations published during the month of October 2024.

Louisiana Supreme Court

  1. Jonathan Wayne Brown. The Court remanded the matter for further review by the disciplinary board.
  2. Jesse P. Lagarde. The Court suspended the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, failed to withdraw from a representation, and failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, 1.16(a), and 8.4(a).
  3. Toni Rachelle Martin. The Court ordered that the respondent be suspended for six months with three months of the suspension deferred. The respondent failed to refund her client’s unearned fee for nearly four years, even after a civil judgment was rendered against her. Thereafter, respondent failed to participate in the disciplinary hearing. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.5(f)(5) and 1.16(d).
  4. Roy Stanley Bonner, II. The Court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day, all deferred. Respondent had been arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Prior to the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which the parties stipulated that respondent violated Rule 8.4(b).
  5. Aaron Brock Avery. The Court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day, deferred in its entirety. The respondent acknowledged that he violated Rule 8.4(b).
  6. Raleigh L. Ohlmeyer, III. The Court revoked the respondent’s probation and imposed the previously-deferred one year and one day suspension. The respondent failed to provide the required trust account audits, failed to cooperate with the ODC in its efforts to contact him, including ignoring a subpoena duces tecum, failed to comply with his bar membership requirements, and failed to pay the costs associated with his prior discipline.
  7. Paul A. Grego. The Court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. Prior to filing the joint motion for consent discipline, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent mishandled his client trust account.
  8. Clifton M. Davis. The Court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for nine months. The suspension shall run consecutively to the one-year and one day suspension previously imposed by the Court. The respondent failed to timely file a lawsuit on behalf of his client, attempted to fax-file the petition when he was ineligible to practice law, and misled his client about the status of the matter. This misconduct occurred during the same time period as the misconduct for which respondent was previously suspended.
  9. Ned Franklin Sonnier, Sr. The Court disbarred the respondent. The respondent neglected client matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to refund unearned fees, failed to return client files, abandoned his law practice, and failed to respond to notices of the associated disciplinary complaints. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f), 1.16(d), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
  10. Desha M. Gay. The Court suspended the respondent for a period of six months with all but sixty days deferred. The respondent provided improper financial assistance to her client, made a misrepresentation to her client, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.8(e), 8.1(c), 8.4(c), and 8.4(a).

Louisiana Attorney Discipline Board

  1. Michelle Andrica Charles. The board recommended that the ODC’s motion to revoke probation be granted and that the previously deferred portion of the nine-month suspension be made executory.

LADB Hearing Committees.

  1. Daniel B. Barzare. Hearing Committee #5 recommended that the respondent be suspended for three years. The respondent intentionally and dishonestly sought multiple loans from a wealthy, elderly client. The respondent never repaid any of the loans he took from the client. Nor did he reimburse the client for the taxes and penalties she paid as a result of the loan. In doing so, the respondent violated Rule 1.8(a) and 8.4(a)(c).
  2. Henry L. Klein. Hearing Committee #23 recommended that the respondent be suspended for one year and one day. The respondent engaged in a pattern of calculated misrepresentations and willful omissions of disciplinary matters when applying for pro hac vice status in other jurisdictions. In doing so, respondent violated Rules 8.4(a), (c) and (d).
  3. Paul H. Hattaway. Hearing Committee #1 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for sixty days, fully deferred. The respondent took on a case without the prior experience, failed to file timely responses to discovery requests, leading to admissions being deemed admitted, failed to inform the client about the negative case developments, did not respond to client communications, practiced while ineligible, and did not properly terminate representation. In doing so, the respondent violated 1.1(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.16(a) and (d), 3.2, 5.5(a) & (e)(3), 8.4(a) (c) and (d).
  4. Lindsey J. Leavoy. Hearing Committee #26 recommended that the respondent be suspended for one year with all but six months deferred. The respondent failed to diligently handle a personal injury case, leading to its dismissal for abandonment in February 2024, failed to obtain written contingency fee agreements and client consent for fee splitting, failed to communicate with the client about case status, worked as co-counsel with his brother (from a different firm) without proper written agreements. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5(c) and (e).
  5. Luke Joseph Thibodeaux, II. Hearing Committee #2 recommended that petitioner’s application for reinstatement be denied.

Please follow and like us:

Please follow and like us:
Tweet