In re Brown

Supreme Court of Louisiana

In re Brown

686 So. 2d 847, 1997 La. LEXIS 366, 1997 WL 43169

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 31, 1997

DocketNo. 96-B-2507

StatusPublished

This text of 686 So. 2d 847 (In re Brown) 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 Brown, 686 So. 2d 847, 1997 La. LEXIS 366, 1997 WL 43169 (La. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

LPER curiam

*

Respondent, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana and Maryland, was [848]*848subject to bar discipline proceedings in Maryland involving three complaints based upon his failure to properly execute his fiduciary duties. On September 18, 1996, respondent and the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland filed a joint petition to the Court of Appeals of Maryland requesting respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. On September 19,1996, the Court of Appeals of Maryland signed the order indefinitely suspended respondent from the practice of law in Maryland.

On the showing made by the disciplinary counsel regarding the disciplinary proceedings in the State of Maryland, and considering that respondent was given thirty days to respond to disciplinary counsel’s filing, but did not do so, and in light of the provisions of La.Sup.Ct. Rule XIX, § 21 regarding reciprocal discipline, it is the decision of the court that the same discipline imposed in Maryland be imposed in Louisiana. Accordingly, it is ordered that Warren Ernest Brown is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Louisiana. It is further ordered that respondent may not petition this court for reinstatement prior to reinstatement in the State of Maryland.

Lemmon, J., not on panel. Rule IV, Part 2, § 3.

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

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

LPER curiam

*

Respondent, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana and Maryland, was [848]*848subject to bar discipline proceedings in Maryland involving three complaints based upon his failure to properly execute his fiduciary duties. On September 18, 1996, respondent and the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland filed a joint petition to the Court of Appeals of Maryland requesting respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. On September 19,1996, the Court of Appeals of Maryland signed the order indefinitely suspended respondent from the practice of law in Maryland.

On the showing made by the disciplinary counsel regarding the disciplinary proceedings in the State of Maryland, and considering that respondent was given thirty days to respond to disciplinary counsel’s filing, but did not do so, and in light of the provisions of La.Sup.Ct. Rule XIX, § 21 regarding reciprocal discipline, it is the decision of the court that the same discipline imposed in Maryland be imposed in Louisiana. Accordingly, it is ordered that Warren Ernest Brown is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Louisiana. It is further ordered that respondent may not petition this court for reinstatement prior to reinstatement in the State of Maryland.

Lemmon, J., not on panel. Rule IV, Part 2, § 3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

686 So. 2d 847, 1997 La. LEXIS 366, 1997 WL 43169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-brown-la-1997.