IN RE: FLYNN KEMPFF SMITH (2023)

I agree with the Court's imposition of a two-year suspension in this matter. However, I write separately to again note my continued astonishment at lawyers who, facing serious sanctions resulting from their own grave misconduct, fail to answer the charges against them or file anything in mitigation for their own defense. Such an awesome display of stunning indifference to the disciplinary process is not only disheartening but also worthy of suspension under these circumstances. See In re: Harvey, 19-1829 (La. 2/18/20), 289 So. 3d 1000 (Crichton, J., concurring, noting respondent's lack of concern for his law license warranted suspension) (citing In re: Quiana Marie Hunt, 19-1412 (La. 11/12/19), 282 So.3d 213 (Crichton, J., dissenting, finding that because respondent failed to cooperate in disciplinary proceedings, a period of actual suspension should be imposed); In Re: Jennifer Gaubert, 18-1980 (La. 2/11/19), 263 So.3d 408 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring, noting the troublesome nature of an attorney refusing to participate meaningfully in disciplinary proceedings); In re: Reid, 18-0849 (La. 12/5/18), –––So.3d ––––, 2018 WL 6382109 (Crichton, J., dissenting, noting that “lack of cooperation with ODC, the Hearing Committee, the Disciplinary Board, and this Court demonstrates (a) stunning indifference to this noble profession”); In Re: Neil Dennis William Montgomery, 18-0637 (La. 8/31/18), 251 So.3d 401 (Crichton, J., dissenting, finding disbarment appropriate where respondent made “zero effort” to respond to any of the accusations against him); and In re: Klaila, 18-0093 (La. 3/23/18), 238 So.3d 949 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring, emphasizing respondent's failure to cooperate warranted the suspension imposed)).

Respondent herein, personally served with the formal charges, failed to answer them. Moreover, although respondent was given an opportunity to file a response with the hearing committee, he filed nothing. Given that this respondent clearly is either unable or unwilling, or both, to represent and defend himself, this Court can safely assume he is not able, willing, or competent to represent a client. It is well settled that the attorney disciplinary process is designed to protect the public and preserve the integrity of the profession. See In re: Miles, 23-0028, p. 8 (La. 4/25/23), 359 So. 3d 960 (mem.); In re Giraud, 18-1646, p. 7 (La. 6/26/16), 284 So. 3d 1186, 1191. Our ruling today accomplishes that objective. Unless and until respondent has proven that he is worthy of a seat at this table, I concur in the Court's finding that his misconduct warrants a substantial period of suspension.

CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons: