Limited Louisiana License Granted To Disbarred Lawyer

With its trademark terseness, the Louisiana Supreme Court has granted an in-house license to an unnamed applicant.

Justice Knoll gave the as much of the story as we are likely to get in dissent

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to grant petitioner a limited license to practice law in this state as in-house counsel for his employer. Petitioner was disbarred in another jurisdiction after he deliberately engaged in a pattern of improper billing practices at his former law firm. As a result of petitioner’s dishonest acts, his law firm was required to reimburse the client’s losses of more than $595,000. In my view, petitioner’s conduct demonstrates a fundamental lack of moral character. Had petitioner been a practicing attorney in Louisiana at the time of this misconduct, there is no question that he would have been permanently disbarred…

The mere fact petitioner is seeking a limited license to practice law is of no moment. Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 14(A)(1)(f)(2) provides in-house counsel are required to satisfy the same standards of character and fitness as all other applicants for admission to the Louisiana bar.

As explained in my concurrence in In re: Hinson-Lyles, 02-2578 (La. 12/3/03), 864 So. 2d 108, “… it is a mockery of our rules to allow someone to apply for admission when the undisputed conduct at issue is a recommended ground for permanent disbarment.” Considering petitioner’s egregious conduct, I see absolutely no basis for granting him admission to the bar in this state in any capacity.

Justice Crichton concurred

I join the majority in granting petitioner a limited license to practice law in the State of Louisiana as provided by La. Sup. Court. Rule XVII, § 14. I write separately to point out that while petitioner’s past conduct is egregious indeed, the application before this Court demonstrates that he has made full restitution; he has acknowledged his wrongdoing, and he has consistently sought atonement for the far-reaching consequences of his actions. Notably, he met the stringent requirements to be re-admitted to the bar in another jurisdiction, and is presently a member in good standing there. Furthermore, although petitioner previously applied for a limited license in Louisiana in 2012, which this Court denied, I believe the additional time since that decision has allowed petitioner an even greater opportunity for professional improvement and reestablishment. Petitioner has also shown sufficient rehabilitative efforts, through counseling and therapy, as well as his full disclosure with his present employer, who supports and encourages petitioner’s application. Moreover, this Court is only granting a limited ability to practice law as an in-house counsel for petitioner’s present employer, and he will not be afforded the full benefits of a standard practicing lawyer. In my view, based upon the time that has passed, and petitioner’s sufficient showing that he has made every effort to follow, and continue on, a straight and narrow path, this Court has made the correct decision to allow petitioner a limited license to practice law in Louisiana.

Chief Justice Johnson also dissented. 

I must say that I look with disfavor on Louisiana’s practice of not identifying the applicant or explaining the rationale for its actions. (Mike Frisch)