In Re: Dounnisei Kuo Gbalazeh

Supreme Court of Louisiana
November 24, 2020
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: DOUNNISEI KUO GBALAZEH
No.2020-B-01111
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 24, 2020
Disbarment imposed. See per curiam.
JTG
BJJ
JLW
JDH
SJC
JBM
WJC
11/24/2020 “See News Release 046 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents.”

11/24/20
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
20-B-1111
I
N RE: DOUNNISEI KUO GBALAZEH
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Dounnisei Kuo Gbalazeh, an
attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently suspended from practice.
PRI
OR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY
Before we address the current matter, we find it helpful to review respondent’s
prior disciplinary history. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in
Louisiana in 2007. On October 1, 2008, she was declared ineligible to practice law
for failure to pay her bar dues and the disciplinary assessment. Respondent is also
ineligible to practice for failure to file her trust account disclosure statement and for
failure to comply with the mandatory continuing legal education requirements.
Respondent has never rectified her ineligibility.
In 2014 and 2015 , respondent practiced law on two occasions by seeking to
enroll as counsel on behalf of immigration clients. She also failed to cooperate with
the ODC in the investigation of two disciplinary complaints against her. On
December 5, 2017, we imposed a one year and one day suspension upon respondent
for her misconduct. In re: Gbalazeh, 17 -1704 (La. 12/5/17), 231 So. 3d 21
(“Gbalazeh I”). Respondent has not applied for reinstatement from her suspension
in Gbalazeh I and thus remains suspended from the practice of law.

2

Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the misconduct at
issue in the present proceeding.

FORMAL CHARGES
In July 2017, Jonathan Savice hired respondent to represent him in an
immigration and naturalization proceeding in Philadelphia. He paid respondent
approximately $3,900 for the representation and met with her on three occasions.
Respondent then abandoned the representation, failed to return Mr. Savice’s
telephone calls, and failed to return the unearned fee. Respondent was served with
a copy of the complaint, but she did not respond.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In August 2019, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging
that her conduct as set forth above violated Rules 1.15 (safekeeping property of
clients or third persons), 5.5(a) (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law), and
8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
Respondent failed to answer the formal charges. Accordingly, the factual
allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and
convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). No formal
hearing was held, but the parties were given an opportunity to file with the hearing
committee written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue of sanctions.
Respondent filed nothing for the hearing committee’s consideration.

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the ODC’s deemed admitted submission, the hearing
committee acknowledged that the factual allegations set forth in the formal charges

3

were deemed admitted and that the deemed admitted facts are supported by the
evidence submitted by the O DC. The committee then determined that the deemed
admitted facts and the evidence in the record support the conclusion that respondent
violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.
The committee determined respondent violated duties owed to her client and
the legal profession. She acted knowingly, if not intentionally, by accepting fees for
work that she did not perform. She then failed to return the unearned fees, essentially
converting the funds to her own use. Her misconduct caused actual and serious harm
to her client. In addition to the funds he paid to respondent for services that he did
not receive, the client had to pay another attorney to complete those services. After
considering the ABA’s Standards for Impos ing Lawyer Sanctions , the committee
determined the baseline sanction is disbarment.
The committee found the following aggravating factors are present: a prior
disciplinary record, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by
intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency,
and indifference to making restitution. The committee determined that the record
does not support the finding of any mitigating factors.
After further considering the jurisprudence of the c ourt, the committee
recommended respondent be disbarred. The committee further recommended
respondent be ordered to provide restitution to Mr. Savice and to return to Mr. Savice
any of his documents that are in her possession. The committee also recommended
respondent be assessed with the costs and expenses of this proceeding.

4

Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s
report. Therefore, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G), the disciplinary
board submitted the committee’s report to the court for review.1

DISCUSSION
Bar disciplinary matters fall within the original jurisdiction of this court. La.
Const. art. V, § 5(B) . Consequently, we act as triers of fact and conduct an
independent review of the record to determine whether the alleged misconduct has
been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re: Banks, 09-1212 (La. 10/2/09),
18 So. 3d 57.
In cases in which the lawyer does not answer the formal charges, the factual
allegations of those charges are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule XIX, §
11(E)(3). Thus, the ODC bears no additional burden to prove the factual allegations
contained in the formal charges after those charges have been deemed admitted.
However, the language of § 11(E)(3) does not encompass legal conclusions that flow
from the factual allegations. If the legal conclusion the ODC seeks to prove (i.e., a
violation of a specific rule) is not readily apparent from the deemed admitted facts,
additional evidence may need to be submitted in order to prove the legal conclusions
that flow from the admitted factual allegations. In re: Donnan , 01 -3058 (La.
1/10/03), 838 So. 2d 715.
The record in this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent
failed to refund an unearned fee, practiced law while she was ineligible to do so, and
failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. As such, she has violated the
Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.

1 As amended effective May 15, 2019, Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G) provides that “[i] f the
parties do not file objections to the hearing committee report, the board shall promptly submit the
hearing committee’s report to the court.”

5

Having found evidence of professional misconduct, we now turn to a
determination of the appropriate sanction for respondent’s actions. In determining
a sanction, we are mindful that disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain
high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession,
and deter future misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So. 2d 1173
(La. 1987). The discipline to be imposed depends upon the facts of each case and
the seriousness of the offenses involved considered in light of any aggravating and
mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So. 2d 520
(La. 1984).
Respondent knowingly, if not intentionally, violated duties owed to her client
and the legal profession, causing actual harm. We agree with the hearing committee
that the applicable baseline sanction is disbarment. The aggravating factors found
by the committee are supported by the record, and no mitigating factors are present.
In recommending a sanction, the committee relied upon the case of In re:
Weber, 15-0982 (La. 8/28/15), 177 So. 3d 106. In Weber, an attorney represented a
homeowner in an insurance claim. The insurance company issued a living expenses
check made payable to both the attorney and the client. The attorney accepted the
check and told his client that he would hold the funds in his trust account until the
client needed them. Thereafter, the client was unable to contact the attorney. The
client never received the check and had to expend additional resources to hire
another attorney to resolve his case. The attorney had not deposited the funds into
his trust account, made no attempts to return the money to the client, did not
cooperate with the ODC’s investigation, and allowed the formal charges to become
deemed admitted. His only mitigating factor was the lack of a prior disciplinary
record. For this misconduct, we imposed disbarment.
In determining the appropriate sanction in Weber , we cited the seminal case
of Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Hinrichs, 486 So. 2d 116 (La. 1986), which set forth

6

guidelines for imposing discipline in a conversion case. According to Hinrichs,
disbarment is warranted when
one or more of the following elements are present: the
lawyer acts in bad faith and intends a result inconsistent
with his client’s interest; the lawyer commits forgery or
other fraudulent acts in connection with the violation; the
magnitude or the duration of the deprivation is extensive;
the magnitude of the damage or risk of damage, expense
and inconvenience caused the client is great; the lawyer
either fails to make full restitution or does so tardily after
extended pressure of disciplinary or legal proceedings.

Respondent’s misconduct, like the misconduct at issue in Weber, falls into
this category. The magnitude or duration of the deprivation of funds is extensive,
the client was significantly damaged and greatly inconvenienced, a nd respondent
has failed to make any restitution to her client. Accordingly, disbarment is
appropriate.
Based on this reasoning, we will adopt the hearing committee’s
recommendation and disbar respondent. W e will also order respondent to make
restitution to Jonathan Savice and to return any documents belonging to Mr. Savice.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the hearing committee ,
and considering the record, it is ordered that Dounnisei Kuo Gbalazeh , Louisiana
Bar Roll number 30896, be and she hereby is disbarred. Her name shall be stricken
from the roll of attorneys and her license to practice law in the State of Louisiana
shall be revoked. It is further ordered that respondent shall refund all unearned fees
to Jonathan Savice and return all of Mr. Savice’s documents to him. 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.