Case ID: so3d_274/html/1246-02.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: Channing J. WARNER
    NO. 2019-B-0663
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 3, 2019
    ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
   PER CURIAM

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent committed serious attorney misconduct, including neglect of his clients' legal matters, failure to communicate with his clients, failure to refund unearned fees, failure to placed advanced deposits for costs and expenses into his client trust account, and failure to return his clients' files upon the termination of the representation. Respondent also practiced law while he was ineligible to do so, failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation, and was charged with issuing worthless checks. Following 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 Channing J. Warner, Louisiana Bar Roll number 29017, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, which suspension commences from the effective date of this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall make full restitution to all clients to whom refunds are owed.

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.

Guidry and Genovese, JJs, would reject consent discipline.

Crichton, J., would reject consent discipline and assigns reasons.

Crichton, J., would reject the petition for consent discipline.

I dissent from this per curiam, because, in my view, the discipline of a three year suspension is too lenient. I would accept only disbarment of this petitioner.

Genovese, J., would reject consent discipline. 
      
      I note that disbarment would not prevent this respondent from reapplying to this Court in five years. See La. Sup. Ct. R. XIX, Sec. 10 (Commentary of the Court amending Rule XIX). See also In re: Perricone , 18-1233 (La. 12/5/18), 263 So. 3d 309 (Crichton, J., concurring and highlighting the difference between disbarment and permanent disbarment).