Supreme Court of Louisiana 

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #075

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 6th day of December, 2016, are as follows:

PER CURIAM: 

2016-B -1253 IN RE: GREGORY F. WILLIAMS, SR.

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing 

committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, 

briefs, and oral argument, it is ordered that the name of Gregory 

F. Williams, Louisiana Bar Roll number 25538, be stricken from

the roll of attorneys and that his license to practice law in the

State of Louisiana be revoked. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 

XIX, § 24(A), it is further ordered that respondent be 

permanently prohibited from being readmitted to the practice of 

law in this state. 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.

WEIMER, J., concurs in the result.
12/06/16

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 2016-B-1253

IN RE: GREGORY F. WILLIAMS, SR.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of 

Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Gregory F. Williams, an 

attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently on interim suspension 

based upon his conviction of a serious crime. In re: Williams, 13-0234 (La. 

2/8/13), 107 So. 3d 613.

UNDERLYING FACTS

At all times pertinent to these proceedings, respondent was employed as an 

assistant district attorney for the 15th Judicial District. In 2007, the district 

attorney, with the consent of a district judge, set up a process in the 15th JDC by 

which a select group of individuals could receive what was referred to as 

“immediate 894 pleas” in DWI cases. In order to qualify for the “immediate 894 

plea,” the district attorney required that the charged individual complete all legal 

prerequisites prior to entering the plea, including community service, a substance 

abuse program, and a driver safety program. The individual cases selected for 

“immediate 894 pleas” were withheld from, or removed from, the normal DWI 

docket, and special court sessions were held to handle these cases. Respondent 

served as the prosecuting attorney for all cases disposed of by “immediate 894 

plea.” The DWI defendant, at the time of the “immediate 894 plea,” would appear 
2

with certifications that he/she had completed the community service requirements, 

the substance abuse program, and the driver safety program. The documents 

would be filed into the court record at the time of the guilty plea. Pursuant to La. 

Code Crim. P. art. 894, the judge would then immediately grant the 894 motion 

dismissing the conviction, which served as an acquittal, thereby allowing the DWI 

defendant to have his/her driving privileges immediately reinstated. 

Beginning in 2010, respondent became aware that personnel in the District 

Attorney’s Office and a non-lawyer by the name of Robert Williamson were 

utilizing the “immediate 894 plea” sessions to provide favorable dispositions of 

DWI cases for defendants willing to pay Mr. Williamson. Respondent was aware 

that the individuals who were being allowed to plead in the “immediate 894 plea” 

sessions were paying Mr. Williamson, and he also knew that Mr. Williamson had 

never been licensed to practice law. In 2010 and 2011, respondent accepted a 

series of gifts and a cash payment from Mr. Williamson, “intending to be 

influenced and rewarded in connection with” the DWI scheme. The gifts included 

an autographed New Orleans Saints hat, bicycles for respondent and his family 

members, and clothing for respondent, ranging from shoes to business suits. In 

December 2011, Mr. Williamson gave respondent a cash payment of $500.

On January 16, 2013, the United States Attorney for the Western District of 

Louisiana filed a bill of information charging respondent with one count of 

conspiracy to commit bribery. The following day, respondent pleaded guilty as 

charged. According to the factual basis for the guilty plea, respondent “was aware 

that [Mr. Williamson] was receiving payments from the individuals being placed in 

the ‘immediate 894 sessions.’ Based upon the large number of [Mr. Williamson’s] 

‘clients’ being placed in the ‘immediate 894 sessions,’ [respondent] knew that the 

amount of money involved in the series of transactions totaled far in excess of 

$5,000.” On July 10, 2015, United States District Judge Elizabeth Foote sentenced 
3

respondent to two years of supervised probation for his participation in the scheme, 

and ordered him to participate in a monitoring program.1

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

In February 2013, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging 

that his conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional 

Conduct: Rules 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), 8.4(b) 

(commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, 

trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving 

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct 

prejudicial to the administration of justice).

Respondent answered the formal charges. He admitted to the allegations in 

the charges, but denied providing “a quid pro quo or benefit in exchange for any 

gift he may have received.” 

This matter then proceeded to a formal hearing, which was conducted by the 

hearing committee in May 2015. Prior to the hearing, the ODC filed a pre-hearing 

memorandum in which it argued that the appropriate sanction in this matter is 

permanent disbarment. In his pre-hearing memorandum, respondent argued that he 

should be suspended from the practice of law for three years, retroactive to 

February 8, 2013, the date of his interim suspension. 

Hearing Committee Report

After considering the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the 

hearing committee made factual findings consistent with the underlying facts set 

forth above.

 1 Terms of respondent’s probation include, but are not limited to, restriction to his residence as 

directed by the probation officer, subject to curfew, and two hundred hours of unpaid community 

service.
4

Additionally, the committee found that respondent submitted a transcript 

into the record, post-hearing, of his sentencing before Judge Foote. During the 

course of the sentencing hearing, it was represented to Judge Foote that respondent 

had voluntarily surrendered his law license. However, there is nothing in the 

record of this disciplinary proceeding which indicates that the loss of respondent’s 

license was voluntary.2

 This representation was made by respondent’s counsel in 

the presence of respondent, and the transcript does not reflect that respondent 

corrected this false assertion. Judge Foote appeared to have been swayed by this 

assertion in her sentencing, as she expressly noted:

The Court is impressed with that humility and with 

your acceptance of responsibility for what you have 

done by voluntarily turning in your license and by 

pleadings of the Bill of Information and based on the 

degree of cooperation that you have shown. [Emphasis 

added.]

The court record clearly reflects respondent’s presence at all times during 

the sentencing proceeding. The assertion that his law license had been voluntarily 

surrendered was made twice, the second occasion coming after Judge Foote 

specifically inquired “And he voluntarily did that?” In reply, respondent’s counsel 

stated, “He voluntarily did that, Judge. He voluntarily did that.” Respondent was 

subsequently given an opportunity to address the court directly and no attempt was 

made to correct the false assertion. 

In his post-hearing brief, respondent pointed to the apparent leniency of the 

court in the sentencing phase as grounds for deviating downward from the baseline 

sanction of disbarment. However, there is reasonable cause to conclude that the 

leniency was influenced at least in part by the false assertion that respondent had 

voluntarily surrendered his law license. 

 2 On January 23, 2013, the ODC filed a petition for interim suspension based upon respondent’s 

conviction of a serious crime. Respondent was served with the petition but did not file any 

response within the fifteen-day period set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19(C). 

Accordingly, on February 8, 2013, we granted the ODC’s petition for interim suspension. 
5

As previously noted, respondent received $500 in cash, an autographed New 

Orleans Saints hat, clothing, and bicycles from Mr. Williamson. Respondent never 

brought any of this to the attention of the district attorney or to the other assistant 

district attorneys in his office. The cash payment was made in respondent’s office 

at the 15th JDC, but respondent did not inquire with anyone at the office about the 

propriety of receiving the cash payment or other gifts. There is no evidence that he 

took any steps to even inquire if an investigation should be conducted into the 

conduct of Mr. Williamson. 

It has been established through respondent’s guilty plea, the nature of his 

charge and various other charges against other individuals involved with the 

scheme that there were benefits given through the actions of respondent that inured 

to the benefit of others. It was also established at the hearing that respondent did 

not have any relationship with Mr. Williamson, the one who provided the gifts and 

cash payment to respondent, and who ushered clients through the “expedited 894” 

proceedings in which respondent represented the 15th JDC. There was no evidence 

of any social or professional relationship with Mr. Williamson in respondent’s 

private practice.

Despite his assertions that he did not know he was doing or intended to do 

anything wrong, and was not aware that there was any benefit being given, 

respondent’s written consent to the charges establishing just the opposite belies his 

assertions. Respondent presented testimony through one witness that sought to 

place blame for his actions on District Attorney Michael Harson, who has never 

been charged with any wrongdoing. Moreover, and as previously discussed, 

respondent made no attempt whatsoever to bring any of the activity to the attention 

of Mr. Harson. 
6

Respondent also testified that for a period of five years he handled over two 

hundred DWI cases in which he knew that Mr. Williamson was involved, that is, 

approximately forty cases per year. 

The committee did not specifically discuss the Rules of Professional 

Conduct in its report, but found respondent’s guilty plea conclusively established 

that he was guilty of intentional corruption of the judicial process as a result of his 

acceptance of bribes, and also guilty of malfeasance in office which resulted in a 

felony conviction involving fraud. The committee did not see sufficient or ample 

reason to deviate from the sanction of disbarment, which is the baseline sanction 

for an attorney convicted of a felony. 

After considering respondent’s conduct in light of the permanent disbarment 

guidelines set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, Appendix E, as well as this 

court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar misconduct,3 the committee

recommended he be permanently disbarred.

Respondent filed an objection to the hearing committee’s recommendation, 

arguing that the sanction recommended by the committee was too harsh. 

Respondent also argued that the committee made factually unsupported 

assumptions and placed undue emphasis on the federal court’s sentencing 

procedure. Respondent denied that he misled or attempted to mislead the 

sentencing federal judge. 

 3 See In re: Bell, 11-1330 (La. 10/7/11), 72 So. 3d 825 (an attorney, in his role as a senior 

prosecutor in the Baton Rouge City Court, accepted bribes in exchange for “fixing” criminal and 

traffic matters pending in the court; permanent disbarment imposed), and In re: Burks, 07-0637 

(La. 8/31/07), 964 So. 2d 298 (assistant city attorney for the City of New Orleans assigned to 

prosecute cases in traffic court accepted $1,000 to nolle prosequi traffic citations for an 

undercover FBI agent posing as a taxi driver; permanent disbarment imposed).
7

Disciplinary Board Recommendation

After review, the disciplinary board determined that the hearing committee’s 

factual findings are supported by the record and are not manifestly erroneous. This 

includes the committee’s consideration of the statements made in the federal 

sentencing transcript.4

 Based on these findings, the board determined respondent 

violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.

The board determined respondent violated duties owed to the public and the 

legal profession. Respondent participated in a conspiracy that allowed others to 

misuse the DWI program in the 15th JDC. His failure to notify his superiors of the 

inappropriate behavior occurring with the DWI program allowed the criminal 

activity to continue. This caused harm to the public by casting a negative light on 

the criminal justice system in the 15th JDC. Respondent’s criminal conviction also 

harmed the legal profession by casting it in a negative light. After considering the 

ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the board determined the 

baseline sanction is disbarment.

In aggravation, the board found a dishonest and selfish motive, a pattern of 

misconduct, substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 1998), and 

illegal conduct. In mitigation, the board found the absence of a prior disciplinary 

record, full and free disclosure to the ODC and a cooperative attitude toward the 

proceeding, character or reputation, imposition of other penalties or sanctions, and 

remorse. 

After considering respondent’s conduct in light of the permanent disbarment 

guidelines set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, Appendix E, as well as this 

 4 The board noted that the court considers the facts and circumstances surrounding a criminal 

conviction when determining an appropriate sanction. In re: Kirchberg, 03-0957 (La. 9/26/03), 

856 So. 2d 1162. This would include the circumstances surrounding the sentencing phase of a 

conviction. Second, respondent moved to hold the record open to introduce the sentencing 

transcript into evidence. Thus, respondent was the party who introduced the facts he now argues 

the committee should not have considered. Accordingly, the board concluded the committee did 

not err in considering and making findings based upon the statements in the criminal sentencing 

transcript. 
8

court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar misconduct, the board recommended 

he be permanently disbarred.

Respondent filed an objection to the disciplinary board’s recommendation. 

Accordingly, the case was docketed for oral argument pursuant to Supreme Court 

Rule XIX, § 11(G)(1)(b).

DISCUSSION

Bar disciplinary matters come within the original jurisdiction of this court. 

La. Const. art. V, § 5(B). When the disciplinary proceedings involve an attorney 

who has been convicted of a crime, the conviction is conclusive evidence of guilt 

and the sole issue presented is whether respondent’s crimes warrant discipline, and 

if so, the extent thereof. Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19(E); In re: Boudreau, 02-

0007 (La. 4/12/02), 815 So. 2d 76; Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Wilkinson, 562 So. 

2d 902 (La. 1990). The discipline to be imposed in a given case depends upon the 

seriousness of the offense, the circumstances of the offense, and the extent of the 

aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Perez, 550 

So. 2d 188 (La. 1989).

Respondent pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery, which he 

committed while employed as an assistant district attorney for the 15th JDC. This 

crime is a felony under federal law and clearly warrants serious discipline. Indeed, 

in their respective reports, the hearing committee and the disciplinary board have 

concluded that respondent’s offenses are so egregious that he should be 

permanently prohibited from applying for readmission to the bar.

We agree. In Appendix E to Supreme Court Rule XIX, the court set forth 

guidelines illustrating the types of conduct which might warrant permanent 

disbarment. While these guidelines are not intended to bind this court in its 

decision-making process, they present useful information concerning the types of 
9

conduct which might be considered worthy of permanent disbarment. For 

purposes of the instant case, Guidelines 2 and 7 are relevant: 

GUIDELINE 2. Intentional corruption of the judicial 

process, including but not limited to bribery, perjury, and 

subornation of perjury.

GUIDELINE 7. Malfeasance in office which results in a 

felony conviction, and which involves fraud.

According to the bill of information filed against him, respondent corruptly 

accepted and agreed “to accept a cash payment in the amount of $500, as well as 

other things of value from currently uncharged co-conspirators, intending to be 

influenced and rewarded in connection with the transaction and serious of 

transactions of the District Attorney’s Office for the 15th Judicial District Court.” 

Respondent subsequently pleaded guilty as charged. His conduct clearly amounts 

to intentional corruption of the judicial process under Guideline 2. Guideline 7 is 

implicated as respondent’s conduct led to his felony criminal conviction.

Turning to the jurisprudence of this court, the following cases are instructive 

and involve similar misconduct: In re: Bell, 11-1330 (La. 10/7/11), 72 So. 3d 825; 

In re: Jackson, 09-2354 (La. 2/12/10), 27 So. 3d 273; and In re: Burks, 07-0637 

(La. 8/31/07), 964 So. 2d 298. In Bell, the respondent was employed as a senior 

prosecutor at the Baton Rouge City Court. He solicited and accepted bribes from 

individuals with criminal and traffic matters pending before that court in exchange 

for dismissing or otherwise “fixing” the charges. In Jackson, the respondent was 

an assistant city attorney for the City of New Orleans assigned to Traffic Court, 

where his duties included prosecuting DWI cases. Nevertheless, Jackson accepted 

$500 to represent a criminal client charged with DWI in Traffic Court. Prior to the 

client’s arraignment and in his capacity as an assistant city attorney, Jackson 

entered a nolle prosequi in the case, effectively dismissing the charges against his 

client. In Burks, an assistant city attorney for the City of New Orleans assigned to 
10

prosecute cases in Traffic Court accepted $1,000 to nolle prosequi traffic citations 

for an undercover FBI agent posing as a taxi driver. Each of these attorneys was 

convicted of felony criminal charges, and they were permanently disbarred under 

Guidelines 2 and 7.

Based on this jurisprudence and the aforementioned guidelines, we find that 

permanent disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this case. Accordingly, we 

will accept the disciplinary board’s recommendation and permanently disbar 

respondent. 

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee 

and disciplinary board, and considering the record, briefs, and oral argument, it is 

ordered that the name of Gregory F. Williams, Louisiana Bar Roll number 25538, 

be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that his license to practice law in the 

State of Louisiana be revoked. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(A), it is 

further ordered that respondent be permanently prohibited from being readmitted 

to the practice of law in this state. 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.
12/06/16

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 16-B-1253

IN RE: GREGORY F. WILLIAMS, SR.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

WEIMER, J., concurs in the result.