In re Scere

Supreme Court of Louisiana

In re Scere

182 So. 3d 941, 2016 La. LEXIS 23, 2016 WL 227889

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 8, 2016

DocketNo. 2015-B-2094

StatusPublished

This text of 182 So. 3d 941 (In re Scere) 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 Scere, 182 So. 3d 941, 2016 La. LEXIS 23, 2016 WL 227889 (La. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM.

| Respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) ’submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which respondent acknowledges that she violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct:- Rules 1.5(f)(3)(4) and 1.15(a)(b). Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Sangbahn Youloamour Scere, Louisiana Bar Roll number 31958, be and she hereby is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. It is further ordered that this suspension shall be deferred in its; entirety and that' respondent shall be placed on supervised probation for a period of two years, subject to the conditions set forth in the petition for consent’discipline. The probationary period’shall commence from the date respondent, the ODC, and the probation monitor execute a formal probation plan. Any failure-of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, of any misconduct during the, 'probationary ■ period,. may be grounds for making the deferred suspension executory,- or -imposing additional discipline, as appropriate. ,

IT. IS,FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and,expenses in the matter,are assessed against respondent in accordance [942]*942with 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.

CRICHTON, J., dissents, and would reject the Petition for Consent Discipline as too lenient.

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

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM.

| Respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) ’submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which respondent acknowledges that she violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct:- Rules 1.5(f)(3)(4) and 1.15(a)(b). Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Sangbahn Youloamour Scere, Louisiana Bar Roll number 31958, be and she hereby is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. It is further ordered that this suspension shall be deferred in its; entirety and that' respondent shall be placed on supervised probation for a period of two years, subject to the conditions set forth in the petition for consent’discipline. The probationary period’shall commence from the date respondent, the ODC, and the probation monitor execute a formal probation plan. Any failure-of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, of any misconduct during the, 'probationary ■ period,. may be grounds for making the deferred suspension executory,- or -imposing additional discipline, as appropriate. ,

IT. IS,FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and,expenses in the matter,are assessed against respondent in accordance [942]*942with 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.

CRICHTON, J., dissents, and would reject the Petition for Consent Discipline as too lenient.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 So. 3d 941, 2016 La. LEXIS 23, 2016 WL 227889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-scere-la-2016.