In re Antwine

Supreme Court of Louisiana

In re Antwine

189 So. 3d 383, 2016 WL 1577010, 2016 La. LEXIS 930

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 15, 2016

DocketNo. 2016-B-0493

StatusPublished

This text of 189 So. 3d 383 (In re Antwine) 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 Antwine, 189 So. 3d 383, 2016 WL 1577010, 2016 La. LEXIS 930 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

liThe Office. of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent failed to com-, munieate with a client, failed to reduce a contingent fee agreement to writing, and failed to comply with the requirements for [384]*384a division of fees between lawyers who are not in the same firm. 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 Jarvis Martez Antwine, Louisiana Bar Roll number 22922, be publicly reprimanded, subject to the conditions set forth in the petition for consent discipline.

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

PER CURIAM.

liThe Office. of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent failed to com-, munieate with a client, failed to reduce a contingent fee agreement to writing, and failed to comply with the requirements for [384]*384a division of fees between lawyers who are not in the same firm. 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 Jarvis Martez Antwine, Louisiana Bar Roll number 22922, be publicly reprimanded, subject to the conditions set forth in the petition for consent discipline.

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)

189 So. 3d 383, 2016 WL 1577010, 2016 La. LEXIS 930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-antwine-la-2016.