IN RE: JUAN CARLOS LABADIE (2023)

In light of respondent's previous suspension in 2011, In re: Labadie, 11-1021 (La. 6/24/11), 65 So. 3d 152, and his interim suspension in 2016 which ultimately resulted in his disbarment in 2018, see, respectively In re: Labadie, 16-0884 (La. 8/31/16), 199 So. 3d 607, and In re: Labadie, 18-1033 (La. 10/29/18), 255 So. 3d 558, I find the Court's suspension of respondent herein woefully inadequate. Specifically, regarding his most recent misconduct, respondent was arrested for possession of a Schedule II Controlled Dangerous Substance and, while the charge for possession was nolle prosequied by the State after respondent enrolled in a pre-trial diversion program, respondent failed to even provide a response to the most recent formal charges filed against him. Accordingly, the factual allegations against him are deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX § 11(E)(3). Thus, due to respondent's consistent inability to adhere to the solemn oath which he took when he was admitted to this noble profession, I would strongly consider permanent disbarment as an appropriate sanction.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   Because this sanction (permanent disbarment) would differ from that of the recommendation of the hearing committee (two-year suspension), in accordance with Rule XIX, Sec. 11(G)(1)(a) of the Louisiana Supreme Court rules, I would order briefing and/or oral argument. See La. S.Ct. Rule XIX, Sec. 11(G)(1)(a) (“․ If the court determines that a different disposition may be appropriate, or for any other reason desires briefs or oral argument, the court will notify respondent and disciplinary counsel of the date for submission of briefs and/or oral argument, and may also designate the issue or issues which especially interest the court.”)

CRICHTON, J., dissents and assigns reasons: