In re Aldige

Supreme Court of Louisiana

In re Aldige

133 So. 3d 663, 2014 WL 814391, 2014 La. LEXIS 360

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 14, 2014

DocketNo. 2014-B-0016

StatusPublished

This text of 133 So. 3d 663 (In re Aldige) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Aldige, 133 So. 3d 663, 2014 WL 814391, 2014 La. LEXIS 360 (La. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent notarized and caused to be filed into a succession proceeding an affidavit that he knew or should have known contained false information. Prior to the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which the parties stipulated that respondent has violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(b), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Hugh D. Aldige, Louisiana Bar Roll number 2368, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. It is further ordered that all but thirty days of the suspension shall be deferred and respondent shall be placed on unsupervised probation for six months, subject to the condition that any misconduct during this period may be grounds for making the deferred portion of the suspension execu-tory, 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent notarized and caused to be filed into a succession proceeding an affidavit that he knew or should have known contained false information. Prior to the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which the parties stipulated that respondent has violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(b), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Hugh D. Aldige, Louisiana Bar Roll number 2368, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. It is further ordered that all but thirty days of the suspension shall be deferred and respondent shall be placed on unsupervised probation for six months, subject to the condition that any misconduct during this period may be grounds for making the deferred portion of the suspension execu-tory, 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 So. 3d 663, 2014 WL 814391, 2014 La. LEXIS 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-aldige-la-2014.