IN RE: Christopher Hummel KANE (2025)

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent employed and supervised an individual who impersonated an attorney and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law for personal financial gain. After the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Christopher Hummel Kane, Louisiana Bar Roll number 33211, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day, with all but ninety days deferred, subject to the condition that any misconduct during this period may be grounds for making the deferred portion of the suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court's judgment until paid.

I dissent and would reject the proposed discipline as too lenient.

Our Rules of Professional Conduct hold supervising attorneys responsible for the actions of their subordinates. See Rules 5.1, 5.3. Here, respondent employed for an extended period an individual who not only had not graduated from law school, but had never even attended law school or completed her undergraduate degree. This unlicensed practitioner, operating under respondent's supervision, committed systematic fraud against multiple clients across three separate ODC files. Most egregiously, while employed at respondent's Legacy Law Center, she exploited a disabled client who had recently lost both parents, convincing him to grant her power of attorney and then stealing millions of dollars from his trust and estate, as well as the family home.

The consent discipline provides for a one-year and one-day suspension, with all but 90 days deferred. I would impose a one-year and one-day actual suspension due to the prolonged nature of respondent's supervisory failures, the vulnerability of the victims, the catastrophic harm caused, and the need for meaningful deterrence where, in instances like this, meaningful trust has been placed in the attorney.

I also strongly encourage the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to vigorously investigate instances of the unauthorized practice of law and other unscrupulous practices in elder law contexts. These systemic frauds require proactive investigation.

PER CURIAM

Crain, J., dissents and would reject the proposed discipline as too lenient.