Opinion
NO. 2018–B–0361
04-02-2018
IN RE: Ronald J. SHOLES
PER CURIAM
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") instituted an investigation into allegations that respondent failed to adequately supervise a non-lawyer assistant. Prior to the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which respondent acknowledges that his conduct violated Rule 5.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Ronald J. Sholes, Louisiana Bar Roll number 14436, be and he hereby is publicly reprimanded.
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.
Clark, J., would reject the joint petition for consent discipline and assigns reasons:
I would reject the joint petition for consent discipline, as I find an insufficient factual basis in this case to conclude that respondent violated Rule 5.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
CRICHTON, J., would reject the joint petition for consent discipline and assigns reasons:
I would reject the joint petition for consent discipline, as I find an insufficient factual basis in this case to conclude that respondent violated Rule 5.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.