IN RE: QUIANA MARIE HUNT (2023)

Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons:

As with respondent's original disciplinary matter before this Court, I would impose harsher sanctions than those elected by the majority. I find her recalcitrance toward the disciplinary process – particularly in light of her history of misconduct – warrants a longer period of suspension. See In re: Quiana Marie Hunt, 2019-1412 (La. 11/12/19), 282 So. 3d 213, 219 (Crichton, J., dissenting). Specifically, respondent's failure to cooperate with the ODC, failure to file an answer, and failure to present anything to the hearing committee or this Court, collectively demonstrate a stunning indifference to her license to practice law and this noble profession that is gravely concerning. See also In re Hingel, 2019-1459 (La. 11/19/19), 300 So. 3d 815, 820 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring, noting “the violations alone warrant significant discipline, but the indifference towards one's license to practice law is most concerning”); In re: Jennifer Gaubert, 18-1980 (La. 2/11/19), 263 So.3d 408 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring, noting the troublesome nature of an attorney refusing to participate meaningfully in disciplinary proceedings); In re: Reid, 2018-0849 (La. 12/5/18), 319 So. 3d 252 (Crichton., J., dissenting, noting that “lack of cooperation with ODC, the Hearing Committee, the Disciplinary Board, and this Court demonstrates [a] stunning indifference to this noble profession”); In Re: Neil Dennis William Montgomery, 18-0637 (La. 8/31/18), 251 So.3d 401 (Crichton, J., dissenting, finding disbarment appropriate where respondent made “zero effort” to respond to any of the accusations against him); In re: Klaila, 2018-0093 (La. 3/23/18), 238 So.3d 949 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring, emphasizing respondent's failure to cooperate warranted the suspension imposed). For the foregoing reasons, I would impose a longer period of suspension than one year and one day.