Permanent Disbarment Proposed For Sex Offenses

The Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommends permanent disbarment of an attorney charged with criminal sexual offenses involving minors.

Count One of the criminal charges

Sometime between the 24th day of October 2003 and the 31st day of October 2003, Respondent committed Indecent Behavior Involving Juveniles with one, E.B, age 13, by committing a lewd or lascivious act with the intention of arousing the sexual desires of the Respondent in violation of R.S. 14:81.

Count Two

Between the 1st day of August 2000 and the 13th day of July 2001, Respondent, committed Indecent Behavior Involving Juveniles with one, K.R., by committing a lewd and lascivious act with another under the age of 17 years, and there was an age difference of greater than two years between the two persons, with the intent to gratify the sexual desires of either person in violation of R.S. 14:81.

Pleas

Following discussions with the Assistant Attorney General prosecuting the matters, Respondent reached a plea agreement where he entered a “no contest” plea to an amended count of the indictment charging him with indecent behavior involving the juvenile E.B. by committing a lewd or lascivious act with the intent of arousing the sexual desires of the defendant. Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment were dismissed.

Following discussions with the Assistant Attorney General prosecuting the matters, Respondent reached a plea agreement where he also entered a guilty plea to an amended bill of information in the matter involving K.R. and charging him with indecency involving a juvenile by committing a lewd and lascivious act with another under the age of seventeen years and where there was an age difference greater than two years between the two persons, with the intent to gratify the sexual desires of either person.

Sanction

Considering Respondent’s latest statements in his Board Brief, wherein he alleges the profession suffered no harm due to his conviction,  that E.B. was not a victim and he did not intend a crime against E.B. because one “never happened,” that his plea deal language was altered without his consent, and that ODC has made false and/or misleading allegations against him, Respondent’s character and the reasonable expectation of rehabilitation requires careful consideration.

Here, Respondent’s conduct clearly qualifies as egregious as it involves improper sexual conduct and behavior with two juveniles, one of whom was only thirteen years old at the time of the molestation. Respondent’s conduct, along with his refusal to take responsibility for his actions concerning E.B., demonstrates that he lacks the moral fitness to engage in the practice of law.

As to whether there is any reasonable expectation to significantly rehabilitate the Respondent’s character, Respondent’s recent allegations and his refusal to accept responsibility for the entirety of his actions, do not evidence a positive character trend towards rehabilitation. In sum, Respondent’s conduct is much more egregious than that warranting mere disbarment, as is evidenced by the likely life-long, severe harm caused to his minor victims.

(Mike Frisch)