IN RE: CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER GROSS (2023)

CRICHTON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns reasons:

I agree with the majority's finding that respondent has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged. Specifically, respondent's conduct violated: Rules 1.1 (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, 1.5(f)(5) (failure to refund an unearned fee), 1.15(a) safekeeping property of clients or third persons, 5.5 (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law), 8.1(b) (knowing failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with ODC in its investigation, 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). However, I disagree with the imposition of regular disbarment and find the circumstances of this matter warrant permanent disbarment. Not only did respondent repeatedly fail to respond to the charges against him, he failed to file anything in mitigation and did not object to the Hearing Committee report which detailed the serious misconduct in which he engaged. Moreover, respondent ignored a specific order from this Court to file a brief regarding the appropriate sanction under these circumstances. In my view, the record in this matter establishes that respondent has satisfied this Court's newly adopted amendments to Supreme Court Rule XIX related to permanent disbarment. As this Court's order states, permanent disbarment may be imposed only “upon an express finding of the presence of the following factors: (1) the lawyer's conduct 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.” I find both of these provisions to be satisfied. Accordingly, I would permanently disbar respondent. See also In re Bell, 22-1331 (La. 11/8/22), 349 So. 3d 551 (Crichton, J., dissents and would impose permanent disbarment); In re Nalls, 2020-1126 (La. 3/24/21), 347 So. 3d 675, reh'g denied, 2020-01126 (La. 5/13/21), 320 So. 3d 414 (Crichton, J., dissents and would impose permanent disbarment); In re Whalen, 20-0869 (La. 9/29/20), 301 So. 3d 1170 (same); In re: Mendy, 16-0456 (La. 10/19/16), 217 So. 3d 260 (same).