September 2019 Discipline

These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders or Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommendations published during the month of September 2019.

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. Erich Webb Bailey. The court publicly reciprocally reprimanded the respondent based upon discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee. The respondent abandoned his representation of a client, failed to return the client file, failed to refund the unearned retainer, and failed to take any action to represent the client. The respondent also failed to respond to the associated disciplinary complaint in Tennessee. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 3.2, 1.16(d), 8.1(b), and 8.4(a).
2. William A. Pigg. The court reciprocally publicly reprimanded the respondent based upon discipline imposed by the State Bar of Texas. The respondent failed to refund unearned advanced payments of a fee after being terminated from representation. Additionally, the respondent permitted a disbarred attorney to perform an activity that constituted the unauthorized practice of law.
3. Everett H. Mechem. The court reciprocally disbarred the respondent based upon discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee. The respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 8.1, 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
4. Erica May Lotz. The court suspended the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent mismanaged her client trust account.
5. Brian D. Williams. The court revoked the respondent’s conditional admission and barred the respondent from reapplying for a period of one year. The court issued no written reasons for doing so.
6. Eduard Duane Schertler, II. The court permanently disbarred the respondent. The respondent attempted to introduce contraband into a penal institution and possessed Suboxone, marijuana, a firearm with an obliterated serial number, and a stolen outboard motor. The respondent also pleaded guilty to varous felony charges.
7. Murray Neil Salinas. The court found the respondent, who was previously disbarred in 2016, responsible for additional violations warranting discipline. The court will consider these violations in the event he seeks readmission after becoming eligible to do so. In regard to the new charges, the respondent neglected his clients’ legal matters, failed to refund unearned fees, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation.
8. Frederick Arthur Lovejoy. The court reciprocally publicly reprimanded the respondent based upon discipline imposed by the Statewide Grievance Committee for the State of Connecticut. The respondent failed to pay for reporting services and later failed to pay the civil judgment for the matter. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 3.4(3) and 4.4(a).
9. Dante Jerome Butler. The court suspended the respondent for eighteen months. The respondent mishandled his client trust account, failed to maintain adequate financial or client records, failed to submit an opposition to a motion for summary judgment, concealed his neglect, and failed to diligently pursue discovery on his client’s behalf.

Disciplinary Board

1. Quiana Marie Hunt. The board recommended that the court suspend the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent negligently managed her trust account and failed to cooperate with the ODC. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(f), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).
2. Mitchel M. Evans, II. The board recommended that the court permanently disbar the respondent and order him to pay restitution to the underlying complainants and to the LSBA Client Assistance Fund. The respondent charged an unreasonable fee, did not reduce a contingency fee agreement in writing, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, took action on behalf of his clients without authority to do so, failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his clients, failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their matter, failed to return the unearned portion of a fixed fee, improperly entering into a business transaction with a client, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in a disciplinary investigation. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(a), 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 1.5(c), 1.5(f)(5), 1.8(a), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
3. Sally Harrison Longmire Hingel. The board recommended that the court disbar the respondent and order the respondent to make restitution. The respondent failed to perform services for which she was retained and deceived her client concerning actions she had taken in the case. Additionally, the respondent purchased prescription drugs from the client. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.1(b), 1.3, 1.4(a)(4), 1.5(f)(5), 1.16(5), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c).
4. George A. Flournoy. The board recommended that the court suspend the respondent for one year. The respondent charged an excessive fee, instructed his secretary to sign a client’s name on a satisfaction of judgment, and then allowed the pleading with the notarized signature to be filed into a court record. The respondent’s conduct violated Rules 1.5(a), 5.3, 8.4(a), 8.4(c).
5. Louella P. Givens-Harding. The board recommended that the court permanently disbar the respondent. The respondent committed health care fraud and engaged in a significant plan and scheme to commit health care fraud resulting in losses in excess of half a million dollars. In so doing, the respondent violated Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c).
6. David Gardner deBlieux. The board recommended that the court suspend the respondent for two years. The respondent engaged in conduct that satisfied the elements of the crimes of unauthorized entry into an inhabited dwelling, domestic abuse battery, simple battery, and simple criminal damage to property. In so doing, the respondent violated rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(b).