IN RE: Brian D. WILLIAMS (2026)

This proceeding arises out of an application for readmission filed by petitioner, Brian D. Williams, an attorney whose conditional admission to the practice of law in Louisiana was revoked in 2019.

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner successfully passed the February 2017 bar examination. Thereafter, based upon a history of delinquent financial obligations, primarily student loans, he and the Committee on Bar Admissions filed a joint petition for conditional admission in this court. On October 17, 2017, we granted the petition and conditionally admitted petitioner to the practice of law for a period of eighteen months, subject to the condition that he (1) continue to make monthly payments toward two student loans pursuant to the payment arrangements made with the creditors; (2) provide the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) with quarterly reports evidencing the payments; and (3) provide the ODC with his credit report every six months. We further ordered that should petitioner “fail to make a good faith effort to satisfy these conditions, or should he commit any misconduct during the period of probation, his conditional right to practice may be terminated or he may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.”

On May 28, 2019, the ODC filed a petition to revoke petitioner's conditional admission. The ODC contended that petitioner had violated the terms of his conditional admission by failing to promptly notify the ODC of changes to his debt servicers, payment amounts, and payment schedules. In addition, the ODC noted that petitioner had failed to timely submit his financial reports and had incurred significant debt that was not addressed with payment arrangements. On June 17, 2019, we ordered petitioner to show cause before a hearing committee why his conditional admission should not be revoked.

On September 4, 2019, prior to a hearing, the parties jointly filed a pleading captioned “Consent to Revocation of Conditional Admission.” In this pleading, petitioner acknowledged that he failed to completely adhere to the terms of his conditional admission, including failing to make a good faith effort to rectify his delinquent financial obligations. Therefore, the parties requested that the hearing before the hearing committee be cancelled and that petitioner's conditional admission be revoked. On September 24, 2019, we granted the petition, revoked petitioner's conditional admission, and ordered that he may not apply for readmission for a period of one year. In re: Williams, 19-0865 (La. 9/24/19), 279 So. 3d 900.

Petitioner subsequently filed an application for readmission with the disciplinary board, alleging he has complied with the readmission criteria set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(E). The ODC took no position regarding the application for readmission. Accordingly, the matter was referred for a formal hearing before a hearing committee.

Following the hearing, the hearing committee recommended that petitioner be readmitted to the practice of law, subject to the following conditions:

1. A practice monitor be appointed by the ODC, and under the supervision of the ODC;

2. During the term of conditional admission, petitioner be required to provide monthly documentary substantiating that he remains current on all outstanding financial obligations;

3. During the term of conditional admission, petitioner be required to attend at least six (6) hours annually of continuing legal education that is certified by the Louisiana Committee on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for Ethics CLE credit.

The committee also recommended that petitioner be assessed with the costs and expenses of this proceeding.

Neither petitioner nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee's report and recommendation. Therefore, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(H), the matter was submitted directly to the court for review and determination.

After considering the record in its entirety, we will adopt the committee's recommendation and readmit petitioner to the practice of law. As found by the committee, the record provides clear and convincing evidence of petitioner's compliance with the readmission criteria. In particular, the record supports the finding that petitioner has made a proactive and sincere commitment to repair his past deficiencies and establish long-term financial integrity. He has kept informed about recent developments in the law and has acknowledged the wrongfulness and seriousness of the conduct that led to the revocation of his conditional admission. Under these circumstances, we find petitioner has shown that he possesses the requisite competence, honesty, and integrity to be readmitted to the practice of law.

Accordingly, we will readmit petitioner to the practice of law, subject to a two-year probationary period. In all other respects, petitioner's readmission shall be subject to the conditions recommended by the hearing committee.

DECREE

Upon review of the recommendation of the hearing committee, and considering the record, it is ordered that Brian D. Williams, Louisiana Bar Roll number 37936, be immediately readmitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to the conditions set forth in this opinion. All costs of these proceedings are assessed against petitioner.

PER CURIAM