Case ID: so3d_166/html/0238-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. CLARK J., CRICHTON, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Jesse Phillip TERRELL, Jr.
    No. 2015-B-0499.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2015.
   hATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent failed to properly supervise a non-lawyer employee, allowing the employee to commingle and convert client funds. Prior to the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent-discipline. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Jesse Phillip Terrell, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 1147, be 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 probation for a period of five years, subject to the conditions set forth in the petition for consent discipline. Any failure of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, or 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 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.

CLARK J.,

dissents and assigns reasons.

hi respectfully dissent. I find the sanction imposed upon respondent too harsh. I do not find that the respondent was even negligent. All agree that he did not even cause harm to the public. The actual harm was caused by criminal conduct of a third person. The only harm was to respondent. In light of the significant mitigating factors present, I am not in favor of any punishment that exceeds a public reprimand. Accordingly, I would reject the petition for consent discipline.

CRICHTON, J.,

dissents and assigns reasons.

hi respectfully dissent. ■ Upon close examination of the record, including the unique circumstances presented, I believe that a one year and one day deferred suspension is unduly harsh and a five-year probationary period is unwarranted. Thérefore, I would reject the petition for consent discipline.