IN RE: Tara ELWELL (2022)

Joint petition for consent discipline accepted. See per curiam.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent charged and failed to account for an excessive legal fee. Following the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Tara Elwell, Louisiana Bar Roll number 31401, be suspended from the practice of law for eighteen months, with all but six months deferred. Following the active portion of the suspension, respondent shall be placed on probation for a period of one year, subject to the special condition 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 portion of the 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 dissent from the Per Curiam granting the Joint Petition for Consent Discipline. In my view, the sanction imposed is far too lenient in light of the serious and troubling misconduct by respondent. The purpose of disciplinary proceedings is to maintain high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession, and deter future misconduct. State v. Reis, 513 So.2d 1173, 1177-78 (La. 1987). In my view, the sanction agreed upon by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and accepted by this Court in this matter does quite the opposite.

Respondent was tasked with a relatively uncomplicated and singular client request involving appointment of a successor trustee for a special needs trust for a client's grandson. This appears to have been an uncontested maneuver, one with which a bank, as original designated trustee, ultimately agreed. Despite the rather innocuous nature of this task, respondent charged the client grandmother a fee of over $100,000.00, which was to be paid out of the special needs trust. Not only is this fee outrageously unreasonable and unconscionable, respondent was unable to provide any contemporaneous billing records to support this fee.

In light of respondent's grave misconduct as presented to this Court, I would reject the Joint Petition for Consent Discipline and impose a sanction, at a minimum, of suspension for one year and one day.

Hughes, J., dissents for reasons assigned by Justice Crichton. Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons.