Opinion
No. 2023-B-00616
06-21-2023
IN RE: Bobby R. MANNING
Joint petition for consent discipline accepted. See per curiam.
Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
McCallum, J., dissents for reasons assigned by Justice Crichton.
Attorney Disciplinary Proceeding
PER CURIAM
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent mismanaged his client trust account, which resulted in the negligent commingling and conversion of funds. Prior to 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 Bobby R. Manning, Louisiana Bar Roll number 25452, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. This suspension shall be deferred in its entirety, subject to a one-year period of supervised probation governed by the conditions set forth in the petition for consent discipline. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent, the probation monitor, and the ODC execute a formal probation plan. Any failure of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, or any misconduct during the probationary period, 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, would reject the joint petition for consent discipline, and assigns reasons:
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 would reject this petition for consent discipline as too severe under the unique and peculiar circumstances of this case. See, e.g ., In re: Orgeron , 23-B-0545 (La. 5/31/23), ––– So. 3d –––– (Crichton, J., would reject the petition for consent discipline as "too severe"); 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).
CRAIN, J., concurs and assigns reasons:
I agree with Justice Crichton and Justice McCallum that these charges standing alone warrant lesser discipline. I diverge from their opinions only because of respondent's prior disciplinary record. Thus, I concur.