In Re: Mark L. James, II

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 26, 2020
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: MARK L. JAMES, II
No.2020-OB-00460
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Reinstatement);
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 26, 2020
Conditional reinstatement granted. See per curiam.
WJC
BJJ
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
JHB
05/26/2020 "See News Release 018 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

05/26/20
SU
PREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2020-
OB-0460
IN
RE: MARK L. JAMES, II
ON APP
LICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT
PER CU
RIAM
Thi
s proceeding arises out of an application for readmission to the practice of
law filed by petitioner, Mark L. James, II, a suspended attorney.
UNDERL
YING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In February 2009, petitioner was arrested and charged with DWI. He pleaded
nolo contendere to the charge and was placed on probation for two years.
In October 2009, petitioner was again arrested and charged with DWI. He
pleaded guilty as charged and was placed on supervised probation for one year.
On March 1, 2013, we suspended petitioner from the practice of law for one
year and one day for his two DWI convictions. In re: James, 12-2701 (La. 3/1/13),
108 So. 3d 747 (hereinafter referred to as “ James I”). In James I, we noted that
petitioner was no longer participating in the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program
(“JLAP”), and as such, “ he should be required to show his compliance with the
reinstatement criteria set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(E) before being
reinstated to the practice of law.”
On November 22, 2012, petitioner was arrested and charged with third offense
DWI. On June 8, 2015, petitioner pleaded guilty to second offense DWI.
Following his third DWI arrest, petitioner successfully completed an inpatient
substance abuse treatment program . On December 3, 2015, petitioner executed a

2

five-year JLAP recovery agreement. He is currently in compliance with all terms
and conditions of the agreement.
On May 27, 2016, we accepted a joint petition for consent discipline to resolve
the matter of petitioner’s second offense DWI conviction. In re: James , 16-0764
(La. 5/27/16), 193 So. 3d 125 (“James II”). In James II , we suspended petitioner
from the practice of law for one year, subject to the conditions set forth in the petition
for consent discipline, including the requirement that petitioner demonstrate a full
year of sobriety and meet the reinstatement criteria of Rule XIX, § 24(E).
In October 2019 , petitioner filed an application for re instatement with the
disciplinary board, alleging he has complied with the reinstatement criteria set forth
in Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(E). The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”)
took no position regarding the application for reinstatement. Accordingly, the matter
was referred for a formal hearing before a hearing committee.
Following the hearing, the hearing committee recommended that petitioner be
reinstated to the practice of law, subject to the condition that he continue to comply
with his JLAP recovery agreement. Among other findings, the committee noted that
petitioner successfully completed treatment for chemical dependency and is fully
compliant with his JLAP agreement.
Neither petitioner nor the ODC objected to the hearing committee’s
recommendation.

DISCUSSION
After considering the record in its entirety, we find petitioner has met his
burden of proving that he is entitled to be re instated to the practice of law on a
conditional basis. Accordingly, we will order that petitioner be re instated to the
practice of law, subject to the condition that he comply with his JLAP recovery
agreement. We will also require petitioner to complete an assessment at four months

3

after his reinstatement, follow any further recommendations thereafter, and complete
the JLAP monitoring program successfully.

DECREE
Upon review of the recommendation of the hearing committee, and
considering the record, it is ordered that Mark L. James, II, Louisiana Bar Roll
number 28622, be immediately reinstated to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject
to the conditions set forth in this opinion. Should petitioner fail to comply with the
conditions of reinstatement, h is conditional right to practice may be terminated
immediately, or he may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for
Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, as appropriate. All costs of these proceedings
are assessed against petitioner.