IN RE: G. KARL BERNARD (2024)

CRICHTON, J., would reject the petition for consent discipline and assigns reasons:

As I have previously noted, the Louisiana Constitution vests this Court with original jurisdiction in all “disciplinary proceedings against a member of the bar.” La. Const. art. V, § 5(B). Notwithstanding the fact that petitioner and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel have submitted this matter as a joint petition, I believe – as our Constitution provides – that the seven justices determine the appropriate result under that exclusive grant of jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re: Whiddon, 2020-0428 (La. 5/14/20), 296 So. 3d 604 (Crichton, J., would reject the petition for consent discipline as “too harsh”); In re: Hessler, 2022-00791 (La. 6/22/22), 339 So. 3d 622 (Crichton, J., dissents from consent discipline petition as “unduly harsh”); In re: Wells, 20-0063 (La. 7/2/20), 297 So. 3d 741, 742 (same); In re: Hardee, 18-1555 (La. 11/14/18), 259 So. 3d 329 (same); In re: Orgeron, 2023-00545 (La. 5/31/23), 361 So. 3d 447 (same). Though I do not condone the rule violations at issue here, in light of the mitigating factors presented, I would reject the Joint Petition for Consent Discipline.