IN RE: RICHARD FORREST WHITE (2023)

Although the majority correctly finds that due to respondent's failure to answer any of the charges against him, the factual allegations contained therein are deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to La. S.Ct. Rule XIX § 11(E)(3), I disagree with the imposition of regular disbarment and would permanently disbar respondent. See La. S.Ct. Rule XIX § 10(A)(1) (․ “the court shall only impose permanent disbarment upon an express finding of the presence of the following factors: (1) the lawyer's misconduct is so egregious as to demonstrate a convincing lack of ethical and moral fitness to practice law; and (2) there is no reasonable expectation of significant rehabilitation in the lawyer's character in the future.”). Respondent's serious misconduct includes violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 3.4(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c) and (d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, but, importantly, respondent also has completely failed to respond to any of the charges against him and failed to file anything for consideration by the Hearing Committee or this Court. In my view, this warrants nothing less than permanent disbarment.

I have consistently noted that an attorney's failure to participate in disciplinary proceedings is not only alarming, it prevents this Court from considering mitigating evidence (if any) and is a blatant disregard for the structure in place designed to protect the public. See In re: Kelly, 20-118 (La. 6/3/20), 298 So. 3d 161 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring, finding permanent disbarment appropriate in light of respondent's serious misconduct, coupled with his failure to answer formal charges against him nor participate in any meaningful way in the disciplinary process); In re Dangerfield, 20-B-0116 (La. 5/14/20), 296 So. 3d 595; (Crichton, J., additionally concurring, highlighting respondent's “stunning indifference to the disciplinary process, resulting in no viable and reasonable choice other than permanent disbarment.”); In re: Gilbert, 17-524 (La. 9/22/17), 232 So. 3d 1221 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring, noting that permanent disbarment is appropriate, particularly in light of respondent's failure to participate in the disciplinary process); and In re Mendy, 16-B-0456 (La. 10/19/16), 217 So. 3d 260 (Crichton, J., dissenting in part and assigning reasons, stating permanent disbarment was warranted because respondent's “evident lack of interest in defending these serious charges against him, coupled with his past sanctions, has no place in this noble profession”). The record reflects that respondent has zero interest in his license to practice and maintains a contempt for our noble profession. Accordingly, I would permanently disbar respondent.

CRICHTON, J., dissents and assigns reasons: