IN RE: Mamie Lenoria FRANKLIN (2026)

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Mamie Lenoria Franklin, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently suspended from practice.

PRIOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY

Before we address the current charges, we find it helpful to review respondent's prior disciplinary history. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana in 2014.

In 2017, respondent participated in the diversion program as a result of her failure to maintain a client trust account and financial records, resulting in the conversion of funds. In 2023, we suspended respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day for failure to reduce a contingency fee agreement to writing, neglect of a legal matter, failure to communicate with a client, failure to provide the client with her file upon written request, and failure to file a motion to withdraw after being terminated by the client. In re: Franklin, 23-0203 (La. 5/2/23), 359 So. 3d 1281 (“Franklin I”). Respondent has served the period of suspension imposed in Franklin I; however, she has not filed a petition for reinstatement and thus remains suspended from the practice of law.

Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the misconduct at issue in the present proceeding.

FORMAL CHARGES

Respondent's parents, who reside in Bossier City, have been involved in an ongoing dispute with their neighbors, Michael and Pamela Ware, regarding the property line and other boundary issues. The Wares had their property surveyed and marked with boundary stakes. On April 27, 2022, respondent went onto the Wares’ property without their consent and removed and destroyed the boundary stakes that had been placed in the ground by the surveyor. The incident was recorded on a security camera. City police were called to the scene, interacted with respondent, and instructed her not to call 911. Despite this instruction, respondent contacted 911 anyway.

Respondent was arrested and charged with simple criminal damage to property, criminal trespass, and criminal mischief (for misuse of the 911 system). After a two-day trial in February 2023, she was found guilty on all counts. For the criminal damage to property, respondent was sentenced to serve sixty days in jail with credit for time served. For the criminal trespass, she was sentenced to ten days in jail (later vacated) and ordered to pay a $500 fine and court costs. For the criminal mischief, she was sentenced to sixty days in jail, consecutive with the first sentence.

In May 2022, the Wares’ attorney filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. The ODC sent notice of the complaint to respondent. She signed for the certified mail, but failed to respond to the complaint, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena compelling her to appear for a sworn statement on November 8, 2022. Respondent was personally served with the subpoena on October 25, 2022.

On November 7, 2022, the day prior to the scheduled sworn statement, respondent faxed to the ODC a “Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Adjudication of Criminal Matter.” Respondent was informed in a telephone call and by email that the ODC had received her motion, and that although she was free to assert her Fifth Amendment privilege pertaining to questions regarding her criminal matter, she must still appear pursuant to the subpoena that was personally served upon her. Nevertheless, respondent did not appear for the sworn statement.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

In February 2026, after respondent's criminal conviction became final, the ODC filed formal charges alleging that her conduct as set forth above violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation) and 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act reflecting adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer).

Respondent failed to answer the formal charges. Accordingly, the factual allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). No formal hearing was held, but the parties were given an opportunity to file with the hearing committee written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue of sanctions. Respondent filed nothing for the hearing committee's consideration.

Hearing Committee Report

After considering the ODC's deemed admitted submission, the hearing committee determined that the record supports the deemed admitted facts. Based on those facts, the committee determined respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.

The committee determined that respondent violated duties owed to the public and the legal profession. She knowingly committed trespass, damage, and mischief. She was convicted of crimes that require intent. Her conduct caused harm to the Wares. She consumed the time and resources of the 911 system and officers. Her conduct brought negative attention to the legal profession. The ODC had to expend its resources to notify respondent of the complaint and obtain her response. Based on the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the baseline sanction is suspension.

The committee found the following aggravating factors are present: a prior disciplinary record, a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, substantial experience in the practice of law, and illegal conduct. The sole mitigating factor present is the imposition of other penalties or sanctions.

After further considering this court's prior jurisprudence addressing similar misconduct, the committee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years. The committee further recommended that respondent be assessed with the costs and expenses of this proceeding.

Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee's report. Therefore, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G), the disciplinary board submitted the committee's report to the court for review.

DISCUSSION

Bar disciplinary matters come within the original jurisdiction of this court. La. Const. art. V, § 5(B). When the disciplinary proceedings involve an attorney who has been convicted of a crime, the conviction is conclusive evidence of guilt and the sole issue presented is whether respondent's crimes warrant discipline, and if so, the extent thereof. Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19(E); In re: Boudreau, 02-0007 (La. 4/12/02), 815 So. 2d 76; Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Wilkinson, 562 So. 2d 902 (La. 1990). The discipline to be imposed in a given case depends upon the seriousness of the offense, the circumstances of the offense, and the extent of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Perez, 550 So. 2d 188 (La. 1989).

In the instant case, respondent was convicted of simple criminal damage to property, criminal trespass, and criminal mischief. She also failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. Based on these facts, respondent has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.

Respondent violated duties owed to the public and the legal profession. Her actions were intentional and caused actual harm. The applicable baseline sanction is suspension. The record supports the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the committee.

In the past, we have imposed a broad range of sanctions on lawyers who have engaged in criminal conduct that resulted in actual harm.

At the higher end of that range is In re: LaMartina, 17-0430 (La. 12/6/17), 235 So. 3d 1061, wherein an attorney pleaded guilty to two shoplifting charges and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. Aggravating factors included a prior disciplinary record, a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and illegal conduct. No mitigating factors were present. For her conduct, we suspended the attorney from the practice of law for three years.

At the lower end of the range is In re: Neal, 23-0344 La. 11/1/23, 374 So. 3d 125, wherein an attorney physically attacked a restaurant owner at his place of business, causing serious injury. Aggravating factors included vulnerability of the victim, substantial experience in the practice of law, and illegal conduct. Mitigating factors included the absence of a prior disciplinary record, timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify the consequences of the misconduct, imposition of other penalties, and remorse. For his conduct, we suspended the attorney from the practice of law for one year and one day, with six months deferred.

Notably, the attorney in Neal had no prior disciplinary record and cooperated with the ODC's investigation. These mitigating factors justified the deferral of a portion of the suspension imposed by the court. Here, however, respondent has previously been disciplined and failed to cooperate with the ODC, making her case closer to that of LaMartina. A lengthy suspension is therefore appropriate.

Based on this reasoning, we will adopt the hearing committee's recommendation and suspend respondent from the practice of law for two years.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the hearing committee, and considering the record, it is ordered that Mamie Lenoria Franklin, Louisiana Bar Roll number 35408, be and she hereby is suspended from the practice of law for two years. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court's judgment until paid.

PER CURIAM

Hughes, J., dissents and would impose a lesser sanction.