In Re: Vincent Wilkins, Jr.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 04, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: VINCENT WILKINS, JR.
No. 2021-B-00298
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Notice of Discipline in Another
Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule XIX, Section 21 and Motion to Initiate Reciprocal
Discipline Proceedings;
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 04, 2021
Reciprocal discipline imposed. See per curiam.
SJC
JLW
JDH
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
05/04/2021 “See News Release 018 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents.”

05/04/21
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
21-B-0298
I
N RE: VINCENT WILKINS, JR.
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
P
ursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
(“ODC”) has filed a petition seeking the imposition of reciprocal discipline against
respondent, Vincent Wilkins, Jr.,1 an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana
and the District of Columbia, based upon discipline imposed by the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals.
UNDE
RLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 7, 2021, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals suspended
respondent from the practice of law for a period of ninety days, with sixty days
stayed in favor of a one-year period of unsupervised probation with conditions, for
failing to provide competent representation to a client. In re: Wilkins, 243 A.3d 866
(D.C. 2021).
After receiving notice of the D.C. order of discipline, the ODC filed a motion
to initiate reciprocal discipline proceedings in Louisiana, pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule XIX, § 21. A copy of the Final Judgment and Order issued by the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals was attached to the motion. On March 1, 2021, this
court rendered an order giving respondent thirty days to demonstrate why the
1 In 2011, respondent was deemed ineligible to practice law in Louisiana for failure to pay his bar
dues and the disciplinary assessment, and for failure to file a trust account registration statement.

2

imposition of identical discipline in this state would be unwarra nted. Respondent
failed to file any response in this court.

DISCUSSION
The standard for imposition of discipline on a reciprocal basis is set forth in
Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21(D). That rule provides:
Discipline to be Imposed. Upon the expiration of thirty
days from service of the notice pursuant to the provisions
of paragraph B, this court shall impose the identical
discipline … unless disciplinary counsel or the lawyer
demonstrates, or this court finds that it clearly appear s
upon the face of the record from which the discipline is
predicated, that:

(1) The procedure was so lacking in notice or opportunity
to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due
process; or
(2) Based on the record created by the jurisdiction that
imposed t he discipline, there was such infirmity of
proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the
clear conviction that the court could not, consistent
with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that
subject; or
(3) The imposition of the same discipline by the court
would result in grave injustice or be offensive to the
public policy of the jurisdiction; or
(4) The misconduct established warrants substantially
different discipline in this state; …

If this court determines that any of those elements exists,
this court shall enter such other order as it deems
appropriate. The burden is on the party seeking different
discipline in this jurisdiction to demonstrate that the
imposition of the same discipline is not appropriate.

In the instant case, respondent has made no showing of infirmities in the D.C.
proceeding, nor do we discern any from our review of the record. Furthermore, we
feel there is no reason to deviate from the sanction imposed in D.C. as only under
extraordinary circumstances should there be a significant variance from the
sanction imposed by the other jurisdiction. In re: Aulston, 05 -1546 (La. 1/13/06),
918 So. 2d 461. See also In re Zdravkovich, 831 A. 2d 964, 968- 69 (D.C. 2003)

3

(“there is merit in according deference, for its own sake, to the actions of other
jurisdictions with respect to the attorneys over whom we share supervisory
authority”).
Under these circumstances, we find it is appropriate to defer to the D.C.
judgment imposing discipline upon respondent. Accordingly, we will impose
reciprocal discipline in the form of a ninety-day suspension from the practice of law,
with sixty days deferred, followed by a one -year period of unsupervised probation
governed by the conditions set forth by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

DECREE
Considering the Petition to Initiate Reciprocal Discipline Proceedings filed by
the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and the record filed herein, it is ordered that
respondent, Vincent Wilkins, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 9208, be and he hereby
is suspended from the practice of law in Louisiana for a period of ninety days, with
sixty days deferred, followed by a one -year period of unsupervised probation
governed by the conditions set forth by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
in its order imposing discipline in In re Wilkins, 243 A.3d 866 (D.C. 2021). Any
violation of the terms of probation may result in the def erred portion of the
suspension becoming executory, or the imposition of different discipline, as
appropriate.