IN RE: MEREDITH WIGGINS BENOIT (2023)

Because respondent failed to answer the formal charges against her, as the per curiam notes, the factual allegations concerning theft contained therein are deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). Thus, I concur with the majority's finding that respondent has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged. However, I disagree with a three year suspension, as I find that sanction unduly lenient. Not only has respondent displayed her indifference to the disciplinary process designed to protect the public, the record demonstrates that respondent has a history of disregard for the legal system as it pertains to her personally. Respondent was also charged with misdemeanor theft in connection with her previous shoplifting incident, for which she was offered pre-trial diversion, but she inexplicably failed to complete the diversion program. Furthermore, in addition to the serious misconduct herein, respondent has received several moving violations that have resulted three attachments for nonpayment of fines and driving while under suspension. In my view, respondent's behavior displays her blatant disinterest in and consistent inability to maintain the integrity required of this profession. See In re: LaMartina, 17-430 (La. 12/6/17), 235 So. 3d 1061 (Crichton, J., dissenting from a three-year suspension, and would impose disbarment based upon respondent's shoplifting conviction “coupled with her lack of cooperation with and flippancy towards her disciplinary proceedings ․”) Accordingly, under the facts of this matter, I would impose disbarment.

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