IN RE: Ginger VIDRINE (2026)

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

This matter arises from a Petition to Initiate Reciprocal Discipline Proceedings filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Ginger Vidrine, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana and Colorado, based upon discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of Colorado.

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Respondent, an experienced criminal defense practitioner, entered into fee agreements with her clients in two complex criminal cases. The agreements contained provisions which “frontloaded” respondent's fees (in that significant fees were deemed to be earned shortly after the representation commenced) and provided benchmarks that were not proportionate with her services as a whole. This fee structure may have unreasonably restricted the client's ability to terminate the representation. Respondent's law firm refunded some of the fees paid by the client in one case at issue, and all of the fees in the other case.

On August 6, 2025, the Supreme Court of Colorado entered a public censure with respondent's consent for her violation of the following provisions of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.5(a) (a lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee), 1.5(g) (nonrefundable fees and nonrefundable retainers are prohibited; any agreement that purports to restrict a client's right to terminate the representation, or that unreasonably restricts a client's right to obtain a refund of unearned or unreasonable fees, is prohibited), and 1.5(h) (governing the payment of flat fees).

After receiving the Colorado order of discipline, the ODC filed a motion to initiate reciprocal discipline proceedings in Louisiana, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21. A copy of the decision issued by the Supreme Court of Colorado was attached to the motion. On November 24, 2025, this court rendered an order giving the parties thirty days to demonstrate why the imposition of identical discipline in this state would be unwarranted.

In response to our order, respondent, through counsel, filed a letter advising she has no objection to the imposition of reciprocal discipline. The ODC filed no response.

DISCUSSION

The standard for imposition of discipline on a reciprocal basis is set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21(D). That rule provides:

Discipline to be Imposed. Upon the expiration of thirty days from service of the notice pursuant to the provisions of paragraph B, this court shall impose the identical discipline ․ unless disciplinary counsel or the lawyer demonstrates, or this court finds that it clearly appears upon the face of the record from which the discipline is predicated, that:

(1) The procedure was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; or

(2) Based on the record created by the jurisdiction that imposed the discipline, there was such infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the clear conviction that the court could not, consistent with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that subject; or

(3) The imposition of the same discipline by the court would result in grave injustice or be offensive to the public policy of the jurisdiction; or

(4) The misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in this state; ․

If this court determines that any of those elements exists, this court shall enter such other order as it deems appropriate. The burden is on the party seeking different discipline in this jurisdiction to demonstrate that the imposition of the same discipline is not appropriate.

In the instant case, respondent has made no showing of infirmities in the Colorado proceeding, nor do we discern any from our review of the record. Furthermore, there is no reason to deviate from the sanction imposed in Colorado as only under extraordinary circumstances should there be a significant variance from the sanction imposed by the other jurisdiction. In re: Aulston, 05-1546 (La. 1/13/06), 918 So. 2d 461. See also In re Zdravkovich, 831 A. 2d 964, 968-69 (D.C. 2003) (“there is merit in according deference, for its own sake, to the actions of other jurisdictions with respect to the attorneys over whom we share supervisory authority”).

Under these circumstances, we find it is appropriate to defer to the Colorado judgment imposing discipline upon respondent. Accordingly, we will impose reciprocal discipline of a public reprimand.

DECREE

Considering the Petition to Initiate Reciprocal Discipline Proceedings filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the record filed herein, it is ordered that respondent, Ginger Vidrine, Louisiana Bar Roll number 27531, be and she hereby is publicly reprimanded.

PER CURIAM