IN RE: SONYA ELOYACE HALL (2024)

I agree that the six violations were proven by clear and convincing evidence, but I find the sanction imposed too lenient, and therefore dissent as to the sanction. A theme that runs through In re: Hall, 21-1389 (La. 12/21/21), 329 So. 3d 281 (Hall I); In re: Hall, 23-1081 (La. 9/26/23), 370 So. 3d 714 (Hall II); and now what will be Hall III is this respondent's stunning indifference to her clients, the disciplinary system, and the noble profession of law.

Considering respondent's established pattern of violations and indifference, and to protect the public, I would impose a suspension of a year and a day, running consecutive to the periods of suspension imposed in Hall I and Hall II. See, e.g., In re: Hunt, 2022-01792 (La. 3/14/23), 357 So. 3d 332, 335 (Crichton, J., dissenting) (“I find her recalcitrance toward the disciplinary process – particularly in light of her history of misconduct – warrants a longer period of suspension.”); In re: Smith, 2023-00596 (La. 6/21/23), 362 So. 3d 416, 420 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring) (“I write separately to again note my continued astonishment at lawyers who, facing serious sanctions resulting from their own grave misconduct, fail to answer the charges against them or file anything in mitigation for their own defense.”). In my view, a lesser sanction risks minimizing the seriousness of the violations that have occurred in this trilogy of disciplinary matters.

CRICHTON, J. concurs in part, dissents in part, and assigns reasons: