If You Want To Get Reinstated, Try “No Comment”

Insufficient remorse and recognition of the seriousness of misconduct should prevent reinstatement of an attorney disbarred in 2009 by the Louisiana Supreme Court for sharing fees with non-lawyers, failure to supervise and facilitating the unauthorized practice of law.

The unfavorable recommendation of the Attorney Disciplinary Board cites a series of post-disbarment newspaper interviews by the petitioner

After his disbarment, Mr. Guirard made the following statements to the media in a series of articles spanning several years. Some of these statements were included in the Committee’s report, others were not. In a May 18, 2009 article in the Greater Baton Rouge Business Report, Mr. Guirard was quoted as stating:

“It used to be, Guirard muses, that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel only went after the lawyers who were lying, cheating and stealing, what he terms the lowhanging fruit. Now he’s convinced it’s venturing into grayer areas.”

There is nothing “gray” about the Rules the Court found Mr. Guirard to have violated. Rather, the Court’s opinion in the underlying discipline matter is quite clear as to what Rules were violated and why.

In an April 19, 2011 article in the Greater Baton Rouge Business Report, when discussing a potential run for public office, Mr. Guirard stated the following:
“’Why not?’ he says. ‘Victim of government injustice – I’m like the poster boy.’”

In the context of this article, Mr. Guirard is clearly referring to his disbarment when he states he was the victim of government injustice. This statement indicates that Mr. Guirard still did not accept that he was disbarred based upon his own actions, which were violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Rather, he saw himself as a victim. Recently, in an April 30, 2014 article in The Advocate, Mr. Guirard stated the following:

“’If I was guilty of some technical violations, then I understand the wrongfulness
and seriousness of that, and I admit to all that. But I don’t know why it was such
a Draconian punishment,’ Guirard said.”

“Guirard said the penalty cost him millions, maybe even tens of millions of dollars in earnings and future earnings, as well as his reputation.” 

First, referring again to the Court’s opinion in the underlying discipline matter, the Court did not find that Mr. Guirard’s violations of the Rules were technical. Rather, the Court found Mr. Guirard’s violations to be significant enough to warrant disbarment. Even at the hearing of this matter, Mr. Guirard was qualifying the extent of this violations and harm they caused.

A hearing committee had favored reinstatement. (Mike Frisch)