Sanction Disagreement For Crimes Against Separated Spouse

The Louisiana Supreme Court suspended an attorney for one year for conduct toward his living-apart spouse with three justices favoring more severe discipline.

During late February 2017, respondent took the children to Colorado on a ski vacation. S.D. did not attend. At the end of the vacation, respondent drove back and while en route communicated with S.D. that he would spend the night at a hotel in Shreveport. It was anticipated that S.D. would drive to Shreveport and then on to Jackson, Mississippi the following day, where their son was scheduled to participate in a soccer tournament, and that she would bring his equipment and uniform.

However, rather than stay overnight in Shreveport, respondent decided to return to Baton Rouge with his two minor daughters and drove directly to S.D.’s residence, arriving on the morning of March 4, 2017 at approximately 2:00 a.m. Believing that S.D. was in her rental home with a male guest, respondent kicked in the locked front door of S.D.’s house, causing the frame to splinter. Respondent then entered the inhabited dwelling without permission to do so. He encountered S.D., who attempted to prevent him from making physical contact with her male guest, and pushed her to the side. Respondent next encountered the male guest and engaged in a physical altercation, striking the male guest and wrestling him to the floor and continuing to strike him while fully on top of him. S.D. attempted to intervene to stop the altercation by climbing onto respondent’s back in an effort to pull him off the male guest, but respondent stood up, causing S.D. to fall. Respondent then walked out of S.D.’s residence, got into his car where his two daughters were sleeping, and returned to the marital residence.

At the marital residence, respondent retrieved his wife’s clothing. He returned to his wife’s home with the minor children still in the vehicle, tossed her clothes onto the driveway, and left. Within a few minutes, respondent again returned to his wife’s home and sought to retrieve his son’s soccer equipment and uniform from S.D.’s locked vehicle. S.D. declined to give respondent access to the vehicle and attempted to step between respondent and her vehicle. Respondent pushed S.D. out of the way, picked up a nearby concrete cinder block and smashed it through the vehicle’s rear driver’s side window. At the point in time when respondent and S.D. were arguing and he struck her vehicle with the concrete cinder block, their two minor daughters were awake in his vehicle and crying.

Respondent admits that his conduct satisfies the elements of the crimes of unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling, domestic abuse battery, simple battery, and simple criminal damage to property.

The court describes the marital issues between respondent and S.D. who met as law school classmates. The court also recounts his history of mental health treatment.

The testimony at the hearing revealed that respondent and his wife met in law school and married in 2003, while both were third-year law students. By 2010, respondent had begun suffering from depression and anxiety and there was a lack of intimacy between the couple. In 2013, S.D. began an extramarital affair with a coworker. Over the next year, respondent and S.D. participated in individual and couple’s counseling. In April 2014, respondent’s internist prescribed Lexapro, an anti-anxiety medication; however, due to the side effects of the medication, respondent did not take it daily as prescribed. In the fall of 2015, respondent completely discontinued Lexapro without medical advice or supervision.

He had been an assistant district attorney

the First Assistant District Attorney who worked in the District Attorney’s Office at the same time as respondent cast some negative light on respondent’s reputation and reasons for his leaving their employ. There was an incident where some money was missing and respondent was accused of having something to do with that; however, the parties implicating him were not deemed credible.

The disposition of the criminal charges here

In connection with the criminal charges against respondent, S.D. attempted to have the warrant for respondent’s arrest recalled, but Lieutenant Charles Polozola of the Baton Rouge Police Department advised this was not possible. Respondent turned himself in on March 10, 2017. The Baton Rouge District Attorney’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office recused themselves, and the matter was assigned to the 18th JDC District Attorney’s Office for handling. The office offered to dispose of any prosecution conditioned upon respondent’s successful completion of a pretrial intervention program. Respondent agreed and successfully completed the program in October 2017.

Sanction

Regarding the issue of an appropriate sanction, we agree with the board that there are certain factual similarities between the criminal conduct in this matter and that seen in the Sterling case. Nevertheless, under the unique facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find that the two-year suspension we imposed in Sterling is warranted here, particularly as this case does not involve the additional attorney misconduct seen in that matter. Rather, we find the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct is a one-year suspension from the practice of law.

Dissent of Chief Justice Johnson

As the facts set out in the Per Curiam demonstrate, respondent acted intentionally, and his actions resulted in serious harm, including property damage and physical personal injury. Moreover, the potential for more serious harm was great given respondent forcibly entered into a house which was occupied at the time. I find it even more troubling that these events took place at approximately 2:00 a.m. with respondent’s minor children present. Considering respondent’s criminal actions satisfied the elements of a felony (unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling), as well as three misdemeanor offenses (domestic abuse battery, simple battery, and simple criminal damage to property), I find the discipline imposed by the majority of this court too lenient. Thus, I respectfully dissent.

Justice Crichton concurred and dissented

The facts surrounding the domestic incident as described in the Court’s opinion give me great pause. This highly charged personal and physical confrontation in the middle of the night, while respondent’s young children were in his nearby vehicle, could have resulted in grave bodily injury or even death. As noted in the opinion, respondent himself admits that his actions satisfy the elements of the felony crime of unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling, and the misdemeanor crimes of domestic abuse battery, simple battery, and simple criminal damage to property. Such intentional and violent behavior falls far short of that expected in our profession.

In my view, moreover, the seemingly mysterious circumstances surrounding respondent’s departure from his previous employment at the East Baton Rouge District Attorney’s office are troublesome. Specifically, I find compelling the aggravating factor, as noted by the hearing committee and the board, that the record reveals some inconsistencies in that respondent may not have been completely forthright regarding this issue.

…Although it is commendable that respondent has complied with his pre-trial intervention program, I agree with the hearing committee that a suspension of one year and one day will provide the necessary length of time respondent needs to continue his on-going therapy and compliance thereof. 

Justice Crain agreed with the Chief Justice.

The dissents would require he demonstrate fitness prior to reinstatement. (Mike Frisch)