IN RE: Keelus Renardo MILES (2019)

Respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which respondent acknowledges that he violated Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.5(a) (charging an unreasonable fee), 1.5(f)(5) (failure to refund an unearned fee), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the representation), 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Keelus Renardo Miles, Louisiana Bar Roll number 29723, be and he hereby is publicly reprimanded.

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 would reject the joint petition for consent discipline. Specifically, a mere public reprimand is inadequate discipline for a lawyer who has violated Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.5(a) (charging an unreasonable fee), 1.5(f)(5) (failure to refund an unearned fee), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the representation), 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. At the very least, I believe that this misconduct warrants a deferred suspension, with special conditions such as additional courses in Ethics.

PER CURIAM

Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons: Genovese, J., would reject joint petition for consent discipline and require a more stringent sanction.