In Re: Joseph Harold Turner, Jr.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
October 01, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: JOSEPH HAROLD TURNER, JR.
No. 2021-B-00786
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN R
E: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Notice of Discipline in Another
Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule XIX, Section 21 and Motion to Initiate Reciprocal
Discipline Proceedings;
_ _ _ _ _ _
October 01, 2021
Reciprocal discipline imposed. See per curiam.
WJC
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
JBM
PDG
10/01/2021 "See News Release 039 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

10/01/21
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
21-B-0786
I
N RE: JOSEPH HAROLD TURNER, 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, Joseph Harold Turner, Jr .,1 an attorney licensed to practice law in
Louisiana and Georgia , based upon discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of
Georgia.
UNDE
RLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The following matters were before the Supreme Court of Georgia on two
notices of discipline, both seeking respondent’s disbarment. Respondent failed to
respond to the notices, and the matters were considered deemed admitted.
C
ount I
Respondent was hired to represent a client in a civil matter. He subsequently
settled the claim, and the client executed a release. A check for the settlement funds
was issued and deposited by respondent; however, he did not disburse the funds to
the client. Respondent also failed to respond to the client’s subsequent requests for
information or to those from the Bar’s Office of the General Counsel (“State Bar”).
1 Respondent is currently ineligible to practice law in Louisiana for failing to fulfill mandatory
continuing legal education requirements, failing to pay bar dues and the disciplinary assessment,
and failing to file a trust account disclosure statement.

2

Count II
The State Bar received notice from Wells Fargo Bank that an overdraft
occurred in respondent’s client trust account. Thereafter, respondent failed to
respond to inquiries concerning the overdraft from the State Bar’s Overdraft
Notification Coordinator or to the State Bar’s notice of investigation.
On April 5, 2021, the Supreme Court of Georgia disbarred respondent for
violating several provisions of Georgia’s Rules of Professional Conduct.
After receiving notice of the Georgia order of discipline, the ODC filed a
motion to initiate reciprocal discipline proceedings in Louisiana, pursu ant to
Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21. A copy of the decision issued by the Supreme Court
of Georgia was attached to the motion. On June 7, 2021, this court rendered an order
giving respondent thirty days to demonstrate why the imposition of identical
discipline in this state would be unwarranted. 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 th is court finds that it clearly appears
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 creat ed by the jurisdiction that
imposed the 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

(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
Georgia proceeding, nor do we discern any from our review of the record.
Furthermore, we find there is no reason to deviate from the sanction imposed in
Georgia, 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) (“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 Georgia
judgment imposing discip line upon respondent. A ccordingly, we will impose
reciprocal discipline in the form of disbarment.

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, Joseph Harold Turner, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 26134, be and he
hereby is disbarred. His name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys, and his
license to practice law in the State of Louisiana shall be revoked.