IN RE: COREY J. ORGERON (2023)

As I have previously noted, the Louisiana Constitution vests this Court with original jurisdiction in all “disciplinary proceedings against a member of the bar.” La. Const. art. V, § 5(B). Notwithstanding the fact that petitioner and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel have submitted this matter as a joint petition, I believe – as our Constitution provides – that the seven justices determine the appropriate result under that exclusive grant of jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re Whiddon, 2020-0428 (La. 5/14/20), 296 So. 3d 604, 605 (Crichton, J., would reject the petition for consent discipline as “too harsh”); In re Hessler, 2022-00791 (La. 6/22/22), 339 So. 3d 622, 623 (Crichton, J., dissents from consent discipline petition as “unduly harsh”); In re: Wells, 20-0063 (La. 7/2/20), 297 So. 3d 741, 742 (same); In re: Hardee, 18-1555 (La. 11/14/18), 259 So. 3d 329 (same).

Violations of Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(b) of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct are serious. However, the underlying facts in this case are unique and, in my view, the proposed sanction, including 30 days actual suspension from the practice of law, is disproportionate to the facts. Under the circumstances presented here, I would reject the Joint Petition for Consent Discipline as too severe.

CRICHTON, J., would reject the petition for consent discipline and assigns reasons: