Case ID: so3d_192/html/0735-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. KNOLL, J., CLARK, J., CRICHTON, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Michael T. BELL.
    No. 2016-B-0544.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 22, 2016.
   PER CURIAM.

hThe Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent engaged in conduct constituting a conflict of interest. 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 Michael T. Bell, Louisiana Bar Roll number 27740, be publicly reprimanded.

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.

KNOLL, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

CLARK, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Justice CRICHTON

CRICHTON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

KNOLL, J.,

dissents.

hi would reject the consent discipline as too lenient for the reasons assigned by Justice Crichton.

CLARK, J.,

dissents for the reasons assigned by Justice CRICHTON.

hi respectfully dissent for the reasons assigned by Justice Crichton.

CRICHTON, J.,

dissents and assigns reasons.

hi respectfully dissent. The respondent concedes a prior disciplinary record. In fact, he received a deferred suspension from this Court less than five years ago for violations of Rules 1.4, 1.16(d), and 8.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In re Bell, 13-2491 (La.11/22/13), 129 So.3d 521. The respondent now finds himself before this Court again in disciplinary proceedings, this time for a violation of Rule 1.7(a)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits an attorney from representing a client if the representation could be significantly, materially limited by a personal interest of the lawyer. In aggravation, the respondent also admitted that the conduct was intentional, and conceded that actual harm to his client could have resulted from his conduct; The ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions call for a period of suspension from the practice of law for intentional misconduct of this nature. Accordingly, I would reject the consent discipline as too lenient.