Opinion
No. 2020-B-00603
07-02-2020
IN RE: Shante Y. WELLS
CRICHTON, J., would reject the consent discipline and assigns reasons.
Although this matter has presented itself to this Court as a petition for consent discipline, I would reject the petition, as I find the discipline imposed unduly harsh. As I have stated before:
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 for consent discipline, I believe – as our Constitution provides – that the seven justices determine if violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct have been proven by clear and convincing evidence and, if so, the appropriate punishment after consideration of applicable aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
In Re: Frank Stanton Hardee, III, 18-B-1555 (La. 11/14/18), 259 So.3d 329 (Crichton, J., dissenting).
See also, In re: Jesse Phillip Terrell, Jr. , 15-499 (La. 5/1/15), 166 So.3d 238 (Crichton, J., would reject petition for consent discipline as unduly harsh); and In re: John Roumain Peters, III , 15-775 (La. 5/22/15), 165 So.3d 916 (Crichton, J., would reject petition for consent discipline as unduly harsh).
--------
Violations of Rules 1.15(a)(f) and 5.3 of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Misconduct are serious; however, the underlying facts in this case that technically support the violations are, in my view, de minimis. Consequently, the proposed sanction, although presented via consent, is disproportionate to the facts under these circumstances. A fully deferred suspension of six months, imposed with the same conditions as presented in the original petition for consent discipline, is more appropriate in this case.