September 2022 Discipline

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

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. William B. Hidalgo. The court granted a petition for transfer to disability inactive status.
2. Dominick Savona, Jr. The court granted a petition for permanent retirement from the practice of law.
3. Zachary Ryan Moffett. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline. Prior to filing the joint petition for consent discipline, the ODC had investigated into allegations that the respondent had neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to refund unearned fees, failed to return file materials to a client, and engaged in conduct involving dishonest, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The court adjudicated the respondent guilty of the additional violations which warrant discipline and which may be considered in the event that the respondent ever applied for readmission from his disbarment.
4. John C. Alexander. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline. Prior to the filing of the petition for consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, engaged in criminal conduct, failed to properly communicate with two clients, held himself out as a lawyer after he was placed on interim suspension, including accepting funds meant to pay legal fees. The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a period of three years, retroactive to January 10, 2020, the date of his interim suspension.
5. Nicole E. Burdett. The court granted a petition for interim suspension filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
6. Justin Bo. West. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline. Prior to filing the joint petition for consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent was arrested for driving while intoxicated. The court suspended the respondent for one year and one day, deferred in its entirety.
7. Michael Isaias Rodriguez, Jr. The court disbarred the respondent. Respondent continued to represent a client knowing he was ineligible to practice law during several periods of time. The respondent then filed a fraudulent pleading with the court that sought to enroll his father as additional counsel for the client. Respondent also delayed the case through false statements to opposing counsel and misrepresented to opposing counsel that he would withdraw as counsel for the client if his eligibility status was not resolved. Later, the client terminated respondent’s services after being unable to contact him. Respondent then delayed the return of the client’s file. When the client filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent, the respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC’s investigation. In doing so, respondent violated rules 1.1(b), 1.1(c), 1.3. 1.16(a)(1), 3.2, 4.1(a), 4.4(a), 5.5(a)(e)(3), 8.1(b), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
8. Virginia N. Roddy. The court granted a petition for the voluntary resignation from the practice of law.
9. Robert C. Jenkins, Jr. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline. The Respondent charged an unreasonable fee and failed to render a periodic accounting to his client. This misconduct occurred during the same time period as the misconduct for which the Respondent was previously suspended. The court suspended the Respondent for a period of two years, with all but six months deferred. The suspension was imported retroactive to the effective date of the prior suspension. Additionally, the court ordered that the respondent’s probation be extended for one year.
10. Christopher Down Hatch. The court granted a petition for permanent resignation from the practice of law in lieu of discipline.
11. Rose M. Garcia. The court granted a joint petition for consent discipline. Before the filing of the joint petition for consent discipline, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the Respondent filed a pleading in a Louisiana court despite the fact that she is not, and has never been, licensed to practice law in the State of Louisiana. The court enjoined the respondent for a period of one year and one day from seeking admission to the Louisiana bar or seeking admission to practice in Louisiana on a temporary or limited basis.
12. Bart James Bellaire. The court suspended the respondent for six months, with all but ninety days deferred. Respondent engaged in conduct constituting a conflict of interest and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated rules 1.7(a), 1.9(a), 8.1(b), and 8.1(c).

Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board

1. Alton Bates, II. The board recommended that the court suspend the respondent for one year and one day. Further, the board recommended that the court order that the respondent pay restitution in the amount of $300.00. The respondent failed to execute a written fee agreement in a contingency matter and failed to provide the client with a written settlement/disbursement statement concerning the outcome of the matter. Further, the respondent settled his client’s lawsuit without informing the client and then deposited the settlement funds into his own operating account. In doing so, the respondent violated rules 1.4, 1.5(c), 1.15(a), 1.15(d), and 8.4(c).
2. Joseph Harold Turner, Jr. The board recommended that the court consider the new rule violations if and when the respondent, who is currently disbarred, seeks readmission to the practice of law in Louisiana. Respondent failed to comply with the minimum requirements of continuing legal education and failed to comply with the requirements regarding annual registration, including payment of Bar dues, payment of the disciplinary assessment, and proper disclosure of trust account information. Respondent accepted a $2,500.00 fee to perform legal services when he was ineligible to practice law, has failed to return this unearned fee, and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Finally, the respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC’s investigation. In doing so, the respondent violated rules 1.1(b), 1.1(c), 1.5(f), 5.5(a), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
3. Robert B. Evans, III. The board recommended that the court permanently disbar the respondent. The respondent engaged in the intentional corruption of the judicial process by making multiple misrepresentations of fact to the courts, improperly converting disputed funds held in the registry of the court, and engaging in conduct calculated to frustrate the administration of justice and harm his opponents. He additionally engaged in the unauthorized practice of law following his interim suspension. In doing so, the respondent violated rules 3.3(a)(1), 5.5, 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).

LADB Hearing Committees

1. Juan Carlos Labadie. Hearing Committee # 54 recommended that the court suspend the respondent from the practice of law for two years, to run prospectively from the date of the final order of the Louisiana Supreme Court. The hearing committee further recommended that the respondent receive no credit for the time he has served on interim suspension or disbarment in unrelated matters. Law enforcement officers conducted a traffic stop on the respondent and a subsequent searched of his person revealed cocaine in the respondent’s pant pocket. In so doing, the respondent violated rule 8.4(a) and 8.4(b).
2. David Band, Jr. Hearing Committee #37 recommended that the court suspend the respondent from the practice of law for six months. The respondent communicated with a represented person when he knew the litigant was represented by another lawyers and when he did not have the consent of the litigant’s lawyer. Further, the respondent submitted false information to the ODC. In doing so, the respondent violated rule 4.2 and 8.1(a).
3. James Casey Fos. Hearing Committee #15 recommended that the petitioner be reinstated to the Louisiana bar.
4. Todd Michael Tyson. Hearing Committee # 1 recommended that the court suspended the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent lacked appropriate diligence, failed to communicate with his client, failed to safeguard funds, converted funds for his own use, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, and failed to cooperate with the ODC. In doing so, the respondent violated rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).
5. Jeffery Dee Blue. Hearing Committee # 37 recommended that the court suspend the respondent for two years and be ordered to make full restitution (with interest) to the Complainants. The respondent did not act with reasonable diligence, failed to reasonably communicate with his clients, failed to keep his clients reasonable informed about the status of the matter, failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests from the clients for information, failed to return unearned fees to each client, failed to safeguard property of the client, failed to take reasonable steps to protect each client’s interest by providing the client with his file, failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the matters, and engaged in dishonest conduct. 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).