In re Volk

Supreme Court of Louisiana

In re Volk

110 So. 3d 129, 2013 WL 1298145, 2013 La. LEXIS 580

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 1, 2013

DocketNo. 2013-B-0309

StatusPublished

This text of 110 So. 3d 129 (In re Volk) 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 Volk, 110 So. 3d 129, 2013 WL 1298145, 2013 La. LEXIS 580 (La. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent made false statements about a judge’s integrity. Following the institution of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which the parties stipulated that respondent violated Rule 8.2(a) (a lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifica[130]*130tions or integrity of a judge) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Jerome M. Volk, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 13109, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months. It is further ordered that this suspension shall be deferred in its entirety.

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

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent made false statements about a judge’s integrity. Following the institution of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which the parties stipulated that respondent violated Rule 8.2(a) (a lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifica[130]*130tions or integrity of a judge) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Jerome M. Volk, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 13109, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months. It is further ordered that this suspension shall be deferred in its entirety.

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)

110 So. 3d 129, 2013 WL 1298145, 2013 La. LEXIS 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-volk-la-2013.