Case ID: so2d_924/html/0990-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Peter JOHN.
    No. 2006-B-0173.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 31, 2006.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent gave legal advice to his client’s co-defendant in a pending criminal case, without his client’s knowledge or consent and without prior notice to or the consent of the co-defendant’s counsel of record. Prior to the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline in which respondent admitted that he failed to communicate with his client and failed to avoid a conflict of interest, in violation of Rules 1.4 and 1.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Peter John, Louisiana Bar Roll number 25725, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. This suspension shall be deferred in its entirety, subject to respondent’s successful completion of a one-year period of probation governed by the terms and 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.

TRAYLOR and WEINER, JJ., would reject.