IN RE: Blake G. WILLIAMS (2025)

ON APPLICATION FOR READMISSION

This proceeding arises out of an application for readmission filed by petitioner, Blake G. Williams, a disbarred attorney.

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 1998, we disbarred petitioner for converting client funds. In re: Williams, 98-1119 (La. 7/2/98), 714 So. 2d 699. In 1999, we extended for five years the minimum period which must elapse before petitioner could apply for readmission to the practice of law, based upon additional allegations of conversion. In re: Williams, 99-1829 (La. 10/1/99), 744 So. 2d 621.

In 2025, petitioner filed an application for readmission, alleging he has complied with the readmission criteria set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(E). The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) took no position regarding the application for readmission. Accordingly, the matter was referred for a formal hearing before a hearing committee.

The committee heard testimony from petitioner that he has made restitution to his former clients, and the ODC confirmed in a stipulation that petitioner has met all requirements of Rule XIX, § 24(E). Following the hearing, the committee recommended that petitioner be readmitted to the practice of law. The committee also recommended that petitioner be required to continue to meet Louisiana's continuing legal education requirements even after reaching the age of 65 until his full retirement or relinquishment of his Louisiana law license. Neither petitioner nor the ODC objected to the committee's recommendation.

DISCUSSION

After considering the record in its entirety, we find petitioner has met his burden of proving that he is entitled to be readmitted to the practice of law. Nevertheless, further precautions are warranted to insure that the public will be protected upon petitioner's return to practice. See Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(J).

Accordingly, we will order that petitioner be conditionally readmitted to the practice of law, subject to a two-year period of supervised probation with the following conditions:

(1) The ODC shall appoint a probation monitor for a period of two years;

(2) During the period of probation, regular audits of petitioner's trust account shall be performed by a CPA of his choosing, subject to the approval of the ODC, and shall be submitted quarterly to the ODC, with the cost and expense of the audits paid by petitioner; and

(3) Petitioner shall obtain the annual mandatory continuing legal education hours despite otherwise being exempt due to his age.

Should petitioner fail to comply with these conditions, or should he commit any misconduct during the period of probation, his conditional right to practice may be terminated immediately, or he may be subjected to other discipline, as appropriate.

DECREE

Upon review of the recommendation of the hearing committee and considering the record, it is ordered that Blake G. Williams, Louisiana Bar Roll number 20031, be immediately readmitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to a two-year period of supervised probation governed by the conditions set forth herein. The probationary period shall commence from the date petitioner, the probation monitor, and the ODC execute a formal probation plan. Should petitioner fail to comply with the conditions of probation, or should he commit any misconduct during the period of probation, his conditional right to practice may be terminated immediately, or he may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, as appropriate. All costs of these proceedings are assessed against petitioner.

The applicant has taken far too long to admit to his wrongdoing and rectify the consequences. Although I commend him for finally addressing the payment of restitution, he only did so under the compulsion of being readmitted to the bar. Because I would deny applicant's petition for readmission to the practice of law, I respectfully dissent.

PER CURIAM

Weimer, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons. Hughes, J., dissents. McCallum, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Chief Justice Weimer.