In re Appeal of the Decision of the Discliplinary Board No. 14-PDB-044

Supreme Court of Louisiana

In re Appeal of the Decision of the Discliplinary Board No. 14-PDB-044

165 So. 3d 912, 2015 WL 3369616

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 20, 2015

DocketNo. 2014-OB-2342

StatusPublished

This text of 165 So. 3d 912 (In re Appeal of the Decision of the Discliplinary Board No. 14-PDB-044) 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 Appeal of the Decision of the Discliplinary Board No. 14-PDB-044, 165 So. 3d 912, 2015 WL 3369616 (La. 2015).

Pincite

Opinions

[913]*913ORDER

hOn the showing made, we are unable to determine whether the disciplinary board acted arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably in approving the dismissal of the complaint against respondent. Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 30(C). However, given the allegations made by the complainant, we believe the disciplinary board erred in not directing that the matter be investigated further pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 30(A), particularly as relates to respondent’s obligations under Rules 3.3(a)(1), 3.3(a)(3), and 3.8(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to conduct further investigation pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(B).

KNOLL, J., dissents and would deny leave to appeal. GUIDRY, J., dissents and would deny leave to appeal. CLARK, J., dissents and would deny leave to appeal.

KNOLL, J., dissents and would deny leave to appeal.

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

[913]*913ORDER

hOn the showing made, we are unable to determine whether the disciplinary board acted arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably in approving the dismissal of the complaint against respondent. Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 30(C). However, given the allegations made by the complainant, we believe the disciplinary board erred in not directing that the matter be investigated further pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 30(A), particularly as relates to respondent’s obligations under Rules 3.3(a)(1), 3.3(a)(3), and 3.8(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to conduct further investigation pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(B).

KNOLL, J., dissents and would deny leave to appeal. GUIDRY, J., dissents and would deny leave to appeal. CLARK, J., dissents and would deny leave to appeal.

KNOLL, J., dissents and would deny leave to appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 So. 3d 912, 2015 WL 3369616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-appeal-of-the-decision-of-the-discliplinary-board-no-14-pdb-044-la-2015.