IN RE: JUSTIN TAFT MERRITT (2023)

I agree with the majority's finding that respondent has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged. However, I disagree with the imposition of regular disbarment and find the egregious circumstances of this matter warrant permanent disbarment.

Supreme Court Rule XIX § 10(A)(1) provides that “the court shall only impose permanent disbarment upon an express finding of the presence of the following factors: (1) the lawyer's misconduct 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.” Respondent's serious misconduct includes the conversion of over $11,000 in client funds, of which there has been no restitution or effort at restitution, despite the former clients being forced to hire another attorney to file a civil suit to recover the funds. These serious charges and the resulting proceedings have been met with total apathy and indifference by respondent, including a failure to answer the charges, failure to present anything in his own mitigation with the Hearing Committee, failure to object to the Hearing Committee's report, failure to file a brief in accordance with the order from this Court directing him to do so, and a total absence of any expression of remorse or regret.

In my view, respondent's serious misconduct and failure to participate in these proceedings warrants permanent disbarment under the standards set forth in Rule XIX § 10(A)(1). As I have previously remarked, “an attorney's failure to participate in disciplinary proceedings is not only alarming, it prevents this Court from considering mitigating evidence (if any) and is a blatant disregard for the structure in place designed to protect the public”) (collecting cases). In re White, 2022-01701 (La. 2/24/23), 355 So. 3d 1085, 1093 (Crichton, J., dissenting, finding the facts of the case warranted permanent disbarment). Here, the record reflects that respondent has contempt for the proceedings necessary to maintain his law license and lacks the ethical and moral fitness to practice law. I therefore dissent and would impose permanent disbarment.

Crichton, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, and assigns reasons.