In Re: Elizabeth H. Icamina

Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 21, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: ELIZABETH H. ICAMINA
No. 2021-B-01449
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Office of Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Elizabeth H. Icamina -
Applicant Other; Joint Petition for Consent Discipline;
_ _ _ _ _ _
December 21, 2021
Joint petition for consent discipline accepted. See per curiam.
Genovese, J., dissents in part and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., dissents.
JLW
JDH
SJC
JBM
PDG
12/21/2021 "See News Release 051 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2021-B-1449
IN RE: ELIZABETH H. ICAMINA
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
PER CURIAM
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation
into allegations that respondent mismanaged her client trust account , resulting in
commingling and conversion. Prior to the filing of formal charges, respondent and
the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline in which the parties
stipulated that respondent has violated Rules 1.15(a)(d)(f), 5.3, 8.4(a), and 8.4(c) of
the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that
Elizabeth H. Icamina , Louisiana Bar Roll number 30906, be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of three years, with eighteen months deferred. 1 This
suspension shall be retroactive to June 22, 2021, the date of respondent’s interim
suspension.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and expenses in the m atter 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 t his court’s
judgment until paid.
1 Although we feel respondent may benefit from a period of probation, we decline to impose
probation at this time because the actual period of suspension is greater than one year and one day,
thereby necessitating a formal application for reinstatement. This court has “typically declined to
impose probationary periods or conditions in cases in which the sanction will require application
for and reinstatement to the practice of law.” In re: Hollis, 13-2568 (La. 3/14/14), 135 So. 3d 596,
599 n.2. Imposition of probation and conditions of probation may be considered if and when
respondent applies for reinstatement after becoming eligible to do so.
12/21/21