IN RE: WREN'NEL GIBSON (2023)

Because I find the three year suspension is unduly lenient in light of the seriousness of respondent's misconduct, I dissent and would reject the petition for consent discipline. The undisputed facts of this case establish that respondent violated numerous provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rules 1.1(a) (failure to provide competent representation to a client), 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.15(a),(e) (safekeeping property of clients or third persons), 1.15(d) (failure to timely remit funds to a client or third person), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the representation), 5.3 (failure to properly supervise a non-lawyer assistant), 8.1(b) (knowing failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation, 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Such disregard for the sanctity of our profession and a stunning failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process warrant nothing less than disbarment. See, e.g., In re: Jerome M. Volk, Jr., 21-489 (La. 9/27/21), 323 So.3d 863 (mem.) (Crichton, J., dissenting, finding three year suspension unduly lenient and would impose disbarment for failure to timely remit funds to a third party, failure to make restitution, and complete indifference toward the disciplinary process).

CRICHTON, J., dissents and assigns reasons: