Reinstated Despite”Sloppy” Petition

The Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated an attorney suspended for a year and a day by consent in 2013

In 2013, we considered a joint petition for consent discipline filed by petitioner and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”). The misconduct at issue in that matter involved allegations that respondent drafted an affidavit at the request of his criminal defense client in which the victim in the underlying criminal proceeding agreed to drop the criminal charges in exchange for the payment of money. For this misconduct, the parties proposed that petitioner be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. On April 26, 2013, we accepted the joint petition for consent discipline. In re: Ferrara, 13-0722 (La. 4/26/13), 116 So. 3d 654 (“Ferrara I”).

In 2015, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that petitioner promised or guaranteed a particular result or outcome of a representation. This misconduct occurred in the same time frame as the misconduct forming the basis of Ferrara I. Prior to the filing of new formal charges, petitioner and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline proposing that petitioner be adjudged guilty of additional violations which warrant discipline and which may be considered in the event he applied for reinstatement from his suspension in Ferrara I. On June 30, 2015, we accepted the petition for consent discipline. In re: Ferrara, 15-1196 (La. 6/30/15), 167 So. 3d 618.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel initially took no position on reinstatement. 

The court reduced the proposed monitoring from five to two years.

Justice Clark would deny the petition.

Justice Crichton dissented

In his petition for reinstatement, which the disciplinary hearing committee characterized as “sloppily prepared” and “concerning” that the petition “had such inaccuracies,” petitioner omitted a significant number of assets and income as well as a number of liabilities, including tax liens in excess of $380,000. Notwithstanding an amendment of his application, petitioner has disregarded the clearly delineated and non-negotiable reinstatement requirements set forth in La. Sup. Ct. Rule XIX, which calls into question whether he possesses the requisite character and fitness to practice law…

Given petitioner’s transgressions and his “sloppily prepared” application for reinstatement, I seriously question whether he has proven that he has the requisites to return to this noble profession. Accordingly, I would deny even a conditional reinstatement.

(Mike Frisch)