Desha gay attorney

These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders or Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommendations published during the month of May

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. David Band, Jr. The court conditionally granted the petitioner&#;s motion for reinstatement to the rehearse of law.
2. Albert A. Bensabat, III. The court granted the ODC&#;s motion for modification of the respondent&#;s probationary terms.
3. Leo Callier, III. The court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. Prior to the filing of the joint petition for consent discipline, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent failed to obtain his clients&#; written informed consent to limit the scope of his representation with his co-counsel in a contingency fee agreement, failed to impart with his clients over a period of several months, and failed to take reasonable steps to protect his clients&#; interests upon termination of the representation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules, (c), , and (d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
4. Edward Moses, Jr. The court suspended the re

   On Monday, October 16, , the Hearing Committee of the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommended sanctions against Attorney Desha Gay for numerous violations of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct.

   The case is titled &#;In Re: Desha Gay&#; with case no. DB-o

   Attorney Gay was charged with conduct involving failure to cooperate with the enquiry, violating client confidentiality, and acts of dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of Rules (c), (c), (a), and (c) of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct.

   The Louisiana Rules of Professional Deeds can be found here.

   On May 15, , the charges were filed by the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) to which Attorney Desha Same-sex attracted failed to respond within the given timeframe resulting in the issuance of an order on June 28, , deeming the charges admitted. Attorney Male lover subsequently filed a motion with the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board to recall the order considering the charges admitted. However, the motion was denied by Hearing Committee No. 15 on August 3,

   Several attempts were made by the ODC to contact Attorney Gay, including sending certified mail, emails, and phone call

   On Friday, October 25, , the Supreme Court of Louisiana suspended attorney Desha M. Gay for violations of professional conduct rules.

   The case is entitled &#;In the Matter of Desha M. Gay,&#; with B

   According to the court&#;s direct, Gay represented a client named Felicia Picard in three separate legal matters from through , including a personal injury case, a criminal matter, and a family law case. During the personal injury representation, Gay provided extensive financial assistance to Picard without proper documentation or the client&#;s written permission. She also misrepresented the status of the family law case to Picard in

   Additionally, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel began investigating Gay in April after receiving a complaint from Picard. Gay failed to fully cooperate and respond to the ODC&#;s multiple requests for communication regarding the representation. She was eventually subpoenaed to provide a sworn statement.

   In May , the ODC filed formal charges against Gay, alleging violations of Rules (e) regarding financial assistance to clients, (c) involving failure to cooperate with investigations and other misconduct rules. Gay did not timely respond to the charges, r

   October Discipline

   These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders of Louisiana Attorney Discipline Board recommendations published during the month of October

   Louisiana Supreme Court

   1. Jonathan Wayne Brown. The Court remanded the matter for further review by the disciplinary board.
   2. Jesse P. Lagarde. The Court suspended the respondent for one year and one day. The respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, failed to withdraw from a visibility, and failed to build reasonable efforts to expedite litigation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules , , , (a), and (a).
   3. Toni Rachelle Martin. The Court ordered that the respondent be suspended for six months with three months of the suspension deferred. The respondent failed to refund her client’s unearned fee for nearly four years, even after a civil assessment was rendered against her. Thereafter, respondent failed to participate in the disciplinary hearing. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules (f)(5) and (d).
   4. Roy Stanley Bonner, II. The Court accepted the connected petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day, all
      
      

      .