IN RE: MAMIE LENORIA FRANKLIN (2023)

I agree with the Court's suspension of respondent for one year and one day, which will require respondent to seek readmission pursuant to La. S.Ct. Rule XIX, § 24. I write separately to note the seriousness of respondent's misconduct that has given rise to this sanction. Specifically, respondent engaged in multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct in representation of a client (Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(c), 1.16(d), 3.2 and 8.4(a)), and even in the face of these serious Rule violations, respondent failed to answer the formal charges levied against her. Furthermore, although respondent intended to object to the Hearing Committee's report, she failed to do so timely, and even with instruction to do so, did not file a motion for leave to file the objection late. Thus, respondent filed nothing beyond her untimely fax-filed objection and therefore failed to perfect service. If respondent lacks the competence to adequately represent herself in her own proceedings, certainly her competence to represent clients may be questioned. See generally La. State Bar Ass'n v. Reis, 513 So. 2d 1173, 1178 (La. 1987) (“Disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession, and deter future misconduct.”). In my view, the combination of these factors demonstrates respondent's carelessness and disregard for the seriousness of her misconduct and clearly warrants the one year and one day suspension imposed by the Court.

CRICHTON, J. additionally concurs and assigns reasons: