IN RE: YASHA LATRICE CLARK (2024)

In reaching an agreement with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel submitting the petition for consent discipline, respondent admitted to serious misconduct involving violations of Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.15(f), 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 5.3(c)(1), 8.1(a), 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) Rules of Professional Conduct. Given the grave nature of the charges, I disagree with the imposition of regular disbarment and find the egregious circumstances of this matter warrant permanent disbarment. See La. S.Ct. Rule XIX § 10(A)(1) (“[T]he court shall only impose permanent disbarment upon an express finding of the presence of the following factors: (1) the lawyer's misconduct 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.”). See also In re: Perricone, 18-1233 (La. 12/5/18), 263 So. 3d 309 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring and explaining the difference between permanent disbarment and regular disbarment). I also find it notable that the ODC contends that respondent submitted false statements or engaged in otherwise deceptive practices during the disciplinary process, demonstrating a disregard—if not outright contempt—for the structures in place designed to protect the public. See In re: White, 22-1701 (La. 2/24/23), 355 So. 3d 1085 (Crichton, J., dissenting).

In my view, the record here reflects that respondent lacks the ethical and moral fitness to practice law. I therefore dissent and would impose permanent disbarment.

Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons.