IN RE: MICHAEL TREAMAN BELL (2022)

I agree with the majority opinion in all respects except for the discipline imposed, as I believe the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly when considered in light of respondent's previous disciplinary cases, warrant permanent disbarment. See In re: Bell, 13-2491 (La. 11/22/13) (imposing suspension of one year and one day), 129 So. 3d 521; In re: Bell, 16-0544 (La. 4/22/16), 192 So. 3d 735) (imposing public reprimand); In re: Bell, 19-1345 (La. 11/5/19), 281 So. 3d 650 (imposing disbarment).

In my view, respondent has met the heightened requirements for permanent disbarment set forth in the recent amendments to Supreme Court Rule XIX. As explained thoroughly in the majority opinion, though the record in this case is replete with egregious rule violations, it is particularly disturbing to me that respondent appeared on behalf of a client before a court while he was disbarred, without disclosing that fact to his co-counsel, the opposing counsel, or the judge. Under these unique and troubling circumstances, I believe the respondent's actions satisfy the requirements of Rule XIX and would impose permanent disbarment. See also In re Nalls, 2020-1126 (La. 3/24/21), reh'g denied, 2020-01126 (La. 5/13/21), 320 So. 3d 414 (Crichton, J., dissents and would impose permanent disbarment); In re: Whalen, 20-0869 (La. 9/29/20), 301 So. 3d 1170 (same); In re: Mendy, 16-0456 (La. 10/19/16), 217 So. 3d 260 (same).

Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons.