IN RE: DUSTIN PAUL SEGURA (2023)

Petition for revocation of conditional admission granted. See order.

ORDER

Considering the Petition for Revocation of Conditional Admission filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and the report of the hearing committee,

IT IS ORDERED that respondent's conditional admission to the practice of law in the State of Louisiana be revoked, effective immediately.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent may not file any new application for admission to the bar for a period of one year from the date of this order. Should respondent thereafter choose to submit an application for admission, he shall comply with all requirements of Supreme Court Rule XVII applicable to new applicants to the bar, including, but not limited to, taking and passing the written bar examination and demonstrating that he possesses the requisite good moral character and fitness to practice law. The incident forming the basis of the current proceeding may be considered in determining respondent's character in the event he applies for admission.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall pay all costs associated with these proceedings.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this _____ day of March, 2023.

FOR THE COURT:

I agree with the immediate revocation of respondent's conditional admission. I also write separately to note that in the midst of the pandemic, this Court instituted an order for emergency admission of Qualified Applicants out of necessity and after significant debate and solemn consideration. See July 22, 2020 Order of the Louisiana Supreme Court, available at https://www.lasc.org/COVID19/Orders/2020-07-22_LASC_BarExam.all.pdf. The Court made this decision in light of the “unprecedented and extraordinary burden” that the COVID-19 pandemic had placed on bar examination applicants and the mitigation measures the Governor had in place in this State. In my view, respondent's actions in this case demonstrate a violation of the trust and grave responsibility this Court put in all Qualified Applicants—the vast majority of which have acted in accordance therewith.

Presumably Respondent is no less competent now than when he was given the opportunity to become a member of the bar without having to take the bar examination. This is now a disciplinary matter, pure and simple. The allegations made concern misconduct, not competence. Respondent will now be required to pass the bar examination because he did not take advantage of the opportunity presented to him. I join in the result of the majority because Respondent should have been required to take the bar examination in the initial instance.

Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons. McCallum, J., concurs and assigns reasons.