IN RE: CONFIDENTIAL PARTY (2022)

Joint petition to dissolve interim suspension denied. Joint petition for consent discipline rejected. See order.

ORDER

Considering the Joint Petition to Dissolve Interim Suspension and the Joint Petition for Consent Discipline filed by respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Petition to Dissolve Interim Suspension be and hereby is denied. Respondent shall remain suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19.2, pending further orders of this court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Petition for Consent Discipline be and hereby is rejected pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 20.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter be remanded to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for further investigation of the pending complaints.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this _ day of _, 2022.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ _

JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

Attorney Disciplinary Proceeding

Respondent and the ODC jointly petition the court to lift Respondent's interim suspension and accept consent discipline. The interim suspension was imposed due to serious substance abuse issues. No-one questions the fact that Respondent's risk of harm to the public resulted from that abuse problem. But, Respondent's response to that issue has been exemplary. He has undergone 50 days of inpatient medical care, just over two months of outpatient care, and the consent discipline requires that he remain in compliance with his JLAP recovery agreement for five years. Upon discharge from inpatient care, it was noted that “his prognosis is good if [he] follows continued care recommendations․”

The interim suspension was entered November 23, 2021. Including his time in treatment, Respondent has been in remission, while suspended from the practice of law, for nearly ten months. Through the joint petition, ODC agrees Respondent no longer presents a threat of harm to the public, as long as he continues to comply with his JLAP agreement.

Respondent's substance abuse was the reason for his interim suspension. Charged violations of the rules of professional conduct remain pending, so if additional discipline is due for those charges, this court will still act. Under these circumstances, I think justice requires that Respondent be reinstated to practice law, while he attends to the remaining disciplinary charges. I would grant the joint petition to dissolve interim suspension and the joint petition for consent discipline.

Crain, J., would grant and assigns reasons.