IN RE: FRANK J. LaBRUZZO (2024)

I agree with the per curiam. I write separately to note the importance of the compelling mitigating evidence presented in this case, which justifies the downward departure from the typical discipline imposed in similar matters. See In re: Bernard, 23-1139 (La. 1/10/24), 375 So. 3d 959 (Crichton, J., dissents in part, and would reject the consent discipline as “too harsh” in light of the mitigating factors presented); In re: Schoenberger, 21-191 (La. 6/31/21), 320 So. 3d 1125 (Crichton, J., dissenting in part, and finding the discipline imposed too harsh in light of the “numerous mitigating factors” presented). Lawyer discipline cases are always evidence driven, and I find the mitigating evidence here to weigh in favor of accepting consent discipline. See, e.g., In re: Smothers, 20-1412 (La. 3/16/21), 312 So. 3d 577 (Crichton, J., additionally concurs) (noting the “evidence-driven” nature of attorney discipline matters): In re: Pullins-Gorham, 20-0692 (La. 12/11/20), 315 So. 3d 187 (same).

Finally, because the suspension is for more than one year, respondent will be required to apply for reinstatement, which provides further guardrails for protection of the public. La. Sup. Ct. Rule XIX § 24(A), (E).

CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.