In re Zerlin

Supreme Court of Louisiana

In re Zerlin

929 So. 2d 1231, 2006 La. LEXIS 1633, 2006 WL 1461258

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 26, 2006

DocketNo. 2006-B-0764

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 929 So. 2d 1231 (In re Zerlin) 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 Zerlin, 929 So. 2d 1231, 2006 La. LEXIS 1633, 2006 WL 1461258 (La. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent failed to properly supervise his non-lawyer assistant and commingled client funds with his own funds. Prior to the. filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, requesting respondent be disciplined for violating Rules 1.15(a) (commingling client and/or third party property with the lawyer’s own property) and 5.3 (failure to properly supervise a non-lawyer assistant). Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Michael S. Zerlin, Louisiana Bar Roll number 21959, be publicly reprimanded.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall enroll in and attend both Ethics School and Trust Accounting School offered by the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Practice Assistance and Improvement Committee.

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 failed to properly supervise his non-lawyer assistant and commingled client funds with his own funds. Prior to the. filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, requesting respondent be disciplined for violating Rules 1.15(a) (commingling client and/or third party property with the lawyer’s own property) and 5.3 (failure to properly supervise a non-lawyer assistant). Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Michael S. Zerlin, Louisiana Bar Roll number 21959, be publicly reprimanded.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall enroll in and attend both Ethics School and Trust Accounting School offered by the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Practice Assistance and Improvement Committee.

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)

929 So. 2d 1231, 2006 La. LEXIS 1633, 2006 WL 1461258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-zerlin-la-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack