IN RE: Shante Y. WELLS (2020)

Joint petition for consent discipline accepted. See per curiam.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent mishandled his client trust account and failed to supervise a non-lawyer employee. Prior to the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline in which respondent admitted that his conduct violated Rules 1.15(a)(f) and 5.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Shante Y. Wells, Louisiana Bar Roll number 27747, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. This suspension shall be deferred in its entirety, subject to respondent's successful completion of a two-year period of probation governed by the conditions set forth in the petition for consent discipline. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent and the ODC execute a formal probation plan. Any failure of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, or any misconduct during the probationary period, may be grounds for making the deferred suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate.

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 petition for consent discipline, finding it imposes too harsh a penalty. Although respondent committed technical violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct resulting from errors related to his trust account, the calculation errors and the deficiency in the trust account were not intentional and respondent's actions did not result in any actual client harm. In my view, the technical violations by respondent do not warrant a period of suspension or probation, even if deferred. I would impose a public reprimand with a requirement that respondent successfully complete the Louisiana State Bar Association's Trust Accounting School. See, e.g., In re Hoychick, 20-00532 (La. 6/22/20), 297 So.3d 718; In re Monroe, 13-1817 (La. 9/27/13), 121 So. 3d 1199; In re Jones, 08-0204 (La. 9/19/08), 990 So. 2d 731; In re Mayeux, 99-3549 (La. 5/16/00), 762 So. 2d 1072.

Although this matter has presented itself to this Court as a petition for consent discipline, I would reject the petition, as I find the discipline imposed unduly harsh. As I have stated before:

The Louisiana Constitution vests this Court with original jurisdiction in all “disciplinary proceedings against a member of the bar.” La. Const. art. V, § 5(B). Notwithstanding the fact that petitioner and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel have submitted this matter as a joint petition for consent discipline, I believe – as our Constitution provides – that the seven justices determine if violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct have been proven by clear and convincing evidence and, if so, the appropriate punishment after consideration of applicable aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

In Re: Frank Stanton Hardee, III, 18-B-1555 (La. 11/14/18), 259 So.3d 329 (Crichton, J., dissenting).¹

Violations of Rules 1.15(a)(f) and 5.3 of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Misconduct are serious; however, the underlying facts in this case that technically support the violations are, in my view, de minimis. Consequently, the proposed sanction, although presented via consent, is disproportionate to the facts under these circumstances. A fully deferred suspension of six months, imposed with the same conditions as presented in the original petition for consent discipline, is more appropriate in this case.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See also, In re: Jesse Phillip Terrell, Jr., 15-499 (La. 5/1/15), 166 So.3d 238 (Crichton, J., would reject petition for consent discipline as unduly harsh); and In re: John Roumain Peters, III, 15-775 (La. 5/22/15), 165 So.3d 916 (Crichton, J., would reject petition for consent discipline as unduly harsh).

Johnson, C.J., would reject and assign reasons. Crichton, J., would reject and assigns reasons. Crain, J., would reject for reasons assigned by Justice Crichton.