Defiance Draws Permanent Disbarment

A previously imposed disbarment was made permanent by the Louisiana Supreme Court based on findings of post-disbarment misconduct

In September 2023, the ODC received a complaint against respondent from Michael Morales, a prosecutor in the Jefferson Parish District Attorney’s Office assigned to the Economic Crime Unit. Mr. Morales advised the ODC that the Kenner Police Department investigated an individual, Kenneth Stanford, for violations of La. R.S. 14:202.1 (residential contractor fraud). Respondent contacted the Kenner police during the investigation and identified herself as a “retired attorney.” Respondent also contacted Mr. Morales to inquire about the arrest warrant for Mr. Stanford. At the time, respondent advised that she would not represent Mr. Stanford if he was charged but would try to help to resolve the matter. She also indicated that Mr. Stanford was willing to pay restitution. Respondent did not inform Mr. Morales of her disbarment.

During the disciplinary investigation, the ODC spoke with attorney Shermin Kahn, who represented the victims of Mr. Stanford’s scheme. Ms. Kahn indicated that respondent contacted her and identified Mr. Stanford as “her client.” They talked about reaching a potential settlement, including negotiations on the amount of restitution Mr. Stanford would pay to Ms. Kahn’s clients, but no agreement was reached. Ms. Kahn indicated that respondent did not disclose her disbarment.

Respondent failed to respond to the complaint, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena compelling her to appear for a sworn statement. Despite being personally served with the subpoena, respondent failed to appear for the sworn statement.

The court

On May 4, 2022, we adopted amendments to Supreme Court Rule XIX related to permanent disbarment. As set forth in our 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.” Respondent’s conduct meets these factors. She continued to practice law in defiance of our order of disbarment in Johnson III, which demonstrates a convincing lack of ethical and moral fitness to practice law. And, given her defiance of the court’s order and failure to cooperate in this proceeding, there is no reasonable expectation of significant rehabilitation of her character in the future.

Accordingly, we will adopt the committee’s recommendation and impose permanent disbarment.

(Mike Frisch)