Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Shiela J. LINSCOMB
Reinstatement denied. See order
ORDER
Considering the record of this matter,
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's application for reinstatement be denied. Petitioner may not reapply for reinstatement until she has paid restitution to her clients, or made good faith efforts to do so, but in no event until one year has passed from the date of this judgment. Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(I).
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this _ day of _, 2021.
FOR THE COURT:
/s/ _
JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
Attorney Disciplinary Proceeding
Petitioner, a suspended attorney, seeks reinstatement to the practice of law. Pursuant to the order accepting the petition for consent discipline, Petitioner was required to either return the unearned fees to her former clients or participate in the fee dispute resolution program. Petitioner has not made restitution or substantial good faith efforts to refund the unearned fees. And, while she participated in the fee arbitration, she provided outdated contact information for her former clients, preventing successful participation by all interested parties in the arbitration process. Accordingly, I concur with the denial of the petition for reinstatement.
I write separately to acknowledge the nearly identical facts presented in In re: Lee, 21-0366 (La. 5/11/21), 315 So.3d 861, where this court granted reinstatement subject to a two-year period of probation. The facts are arguably indistinguishable as both matters involve suspended attorneys who were ordered to participate in fee dispute arbitration, failed to promptly do so, waited many years to initiate the arbitration process, and ultimately frustrated the process by failing to submit current contact information for their former clients. Unfortunately, our action in this case does not appear consistent with Lee. However, upon further evaluation and reconsideration, I believe our action in this case is the better course.
Hughes, J., would grant conditional reinstatement. Crain, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons. Griffin, J., would grant conditional reinstatement.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 2021-OB-00877
Decided: October 19, 2021
Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)