Opinion
No. 2022-B-00791
06-22-2022
IN RE: Eric J. HESSLER
Joint petition for consent discipline accepted. See per curiam.
Crichton, J., dissents in part and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., dissents in part for reasons assigned by Justice Crichton.
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
PER CURIAM
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent was arrested for driving while intoxicated. Following the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. Having reviewed the petition, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Eric J. Hessler, Louisiana Bar Roll number 27453, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. It is further ordered that this suspension shall be deferred in its entirety and that respondent shall be placed on probation for a period to coincide with the term of his diagnostic monitoring agreement with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program. Any failure of respondent to comply with the terms of the agreement may be grounds for making the deferred suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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.
CRICHTON, J., dissents in part and assigns reasons:
Although respondent's misconduct is worthy of this Court's discipline, I do not find it rises to the level warranting a two-year diagnostic monitoring program with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program. Accordingly, I would reject the joint petition for consent discipline as I find it unduly harsh and impose a one-year period of monitoring.