Desha gay attorney
On Friday, October 25, , the Supreme Court of Louisiana suspended attorney Desha M. Gay for violations of professional conduct rules.
The case is entitled &#;In the Matter of Desha M. Gay,&#; with B
According to the court&#;s directive, Gay represented a client named Felicia Picard in three separate legal matters from through , including a personal injury case, a criminal matter, and a family statute case. During the personal injury voice, Gay provided extensive financial assistance to Picard without proper documentation or the client&#;s written permission. She also misrepresented the status of the family rule case to Picard in
Additionally, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel began probing Gay in April after receiving a complaint from Picard. Gay failed to fully cooperate and respond to the ODC&#;s multiple requests for information regarding the representation. She was eventually subpoenaed to provide a sworn statement.
In May , the ODC filed formal charges against Gay, alleging violations of Rules (e) regarding financial assistance to clients, (c) involving defeat to co
On Monday, October 16, , the Hearing Committee of the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommended sanctions against Attorney Desha Gay for numerous violations of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct.
The case is titled &#;In Re: Desha Gay&#; with case no. DB-o
Attorney Gay was charged with conduct involving failure to cooperate with the study, violating client confidentiality, and acts of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of Rules (c), (c), (a), and (c) of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Louisiana Rules of Professional Behavior can be found here.
On May 15, , the charges were filed by the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) to which Attorney Desha Male lover failed to respond within the given timeframe resulting in the issuance of an order on June 28, , deeming the charges admitted. Attorney Same-sex attracted subsequently filed a motion with the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board to recall the order considering the charges admitted. However, the motion was denied by Hearing Committee No. 15 on August 3,
Several attempts we
May Discipline
These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders or Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommendations published during the month of May
Louisiana Supreme Court
- David Band, Jr. The court conditionally granted the petitioner&#;s motion for reinstatement to the drill of law.
- Albert A. Bensabat, III. The court granted the ODC&#;s motion for modification of the respondent&#;s probationary terms.
- Leo Callier, III. The court granted the joint petition for permission discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. Prior to the filing of the joint petition for consent discipline, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent failed to obtain his clients&#; written informed consent to limit the scope of his representation with his co-counsel in a contingency fee agreement, failed to communicate with his clients over a period of several months, and failed to take reasonable steps to protect his clients&#; interests upon termination of the representation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules,
October Discipline
These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders of Louisiana Attorney Discipline Board recommendations published during the month of October
Louisiana Supreme Court
- Jonathan Wayne Brown. The Court remanded the matter for further review by the disciplinary board.
- Jesse P. Lagarde. The Court suspended the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, failed to withdraw from a advocacy, and failed to create reasonable efforts to expedite litigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules , , , (a), and (a).
- Toni Rachelle Martin. The Court ordered that the respondent be suspended for six months with three months of the suspension deferred. The respondent failed to refund her client’s unearned fee for nearly four years, even after a civil opinion was rendered against her. Thereafter, respondent failed to participate in the disciplinary hearing. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules (f)(5) and (d).
- Roy Stanley Bonner, II. The Court accepted t