In re Davis

Supreme Court of Louisiana

In re Davis

852 So. 2d 986, 2003 WL 21480645

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 27, 2003

DocketNo. 2003-B-1018

StatusPublished

This text of 852 So. 2d 986 (In re Davis) 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 Davis, 852 So. 2d 986, 2003 WL 21480645 (La. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

hPER CURIAM.

This matter arises from a petition for consent discipline filed by respondent, Pamela Ann Davis, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana. For her misconduct, which involves her failure to timely pay a third-party medical provider, respondent proposed that she be suspended from the practice of law for one year, fully deferred, subject to an eighteen-month period of probation with conditions. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) concurred in respondent’s petition, and the disciplinary board recommended the proposed discipline be accepted.

It is the decision of this court that the petition for consent discipline be accepted. Accordingly, we will impose a fully deferred suspension, subject to probation with the conditions set forth in the petition for consent discipline.

DECREE

Upon review of the petition for consent discipline, the findings and recommendation of the disciplinary board, and considering the record filed herein, it is ordered that Pamela Ann Davis, Louisiana Bar Roll number 25377, be suspended from the practice of law in Louisiana for a period of [987]*987one year. It is further ordered that said suspension shall be fully deferred, subject to respondent’s successful completion of an eighteen-month period of probation governed by the conditions set forth in the petition for consent discipline. Any violation of the conditions of probation or any | pother misconduct during the probationary period may be grounds for making the deferred portion of the suspension execu-tory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate. 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.

VICTORY and TRAYLOR, JJ., would reject consent discipline.

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

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

hPER CURIAM.

This matter arises from a petition for consent discipline filed by respondent, Pamela Ann Davis, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana. For her misconduct, which involves her failure to timely pay a third-party medical provider, respondent proposed that she be suspended from the practice of law for one year, fully deferred, subject to an eighteen-month period of probation with conditions. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) concurred in respondent’s petition, and the disciplinary board recommended the proposed discipline be accepted.

It is the decision of this court that the petition for consent discipline be accepted. Accordingly, we will impose a fully deferred suspension, subject to probation with the conditions set forth in the petition for consent discipline.

DECREE

Upon review of the petition for consent discipline, the findings and recommendation of the disciplinary board, and considering the record filed herein, it is ordered that Pamela Ann Davis, Louisiana Bar Roll number 25377, be suspended from the practice of law in Louisiana for a period of [987]*987one year. It is further ordered that said suspension shall be fully deferred, subject to respondent’s successful completion of an eighteen-month period of probation governed by the conditions set forth in the petition for consent discipline. Any violation of the conditions of probation or any | pother misconduct during the probationary period may be grounds for making the deferred portion of the suspension execu-tory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate. 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.

VICTORY and TRAYLOR, JJ., would reject consent discipline.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

852 So. 2d 986, 2003 WL 21480645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-davis-la-2003.