Former Prosecutor Permanently Disbarred

The Louisiana Supreme Court has permanently disbarred a convicted attorney

In October 2020, respondent was charged in West Feliciana Parish with the aggravated rape of a thirteen-year-old victim in 2003. In December 2020, respondent was charged with felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile and accused of committing that crime with a sixteen-year-old victim between August 2000 and July 2001.

On June 10, 2022, pursuant to a plea bargain with the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office, respondent entered a plea to the amended offense of indecency with juveniles (two counts). Specifically, respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to Count One, involving thirteen-year old victim E.B., and entered a plea of guilty to Count Two, involving sixteen-year old victim K.R. Respondent was sentenced to serve a total of fourteen years at hard labor, with a total of nine years suspended, on both counts, and he will be permanently registered as a sex offender. Respondent is currently in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections.

Sanction

Both the hearing committee and the disciplinary board have recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred. On May 4, 2022, the court adopted amendments to Supreme Court Rule XIX related to permanent disbarment. As is set forth in the order, permanent disbarment may be imposed only “upon an express finding of the presence of the following factors: (1) the lawyer’s conduct is so egregious as to demonstrate a convincing lack of ethical and moral fitness to practice law; and (2) there is no reasonable expectation of significant rehabilitation in the lawyer’s character in the future.”

Here, respondent’s misconduct was clearly egregious. His convictions for two sexual offenses involving juveniles “demonstrate[s] a convincing lack of ethical and moral fitness to practice law.” Furthermore, the criminal offenses occurred when respondent was serving as an assistant district attorney. Despite his position of public trust, respondent engaged in serious criminal acts with very vulnerable victims, ages 13 and 16. He expressed no remorse for his conduct at the hearing in this matter. We therefore find there is no reasonable expectation of significant rehabilitation in respondent’s character in the future.

Based on these findings, we conclude the recommended sanction of permanent disbarment is adequately supported under Supreme Court Rule XIX. Accordingly, we will accept the disciplinary board’s recommendation and permanently disbar respondent.

(Mike Frisch)