In Re: David J. Motter

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: DAVID J. MOTTER
No. 2021-B-01779
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) - Applicant Other; David J. Motter -
Applicant Other; Joint Petition for Consent Discipline;
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 12, 2022
Joint petition for consent discipline accepted. See per curiam.
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
04/12/2022 "See News Release 016 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."
April 12, 2022

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO.
2021-B-1779
I
N RE: DAVID J. MOTTER
ATTOR
NEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
PE
R CURIAM
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commence d an investigation into
allegations that respondent neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients,
failed to promptly refund unearned fees, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and
engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. When the
ODC attempted to investigate these matters, respondent initially failed to cooperate with
the investigations. Respondent and the ODC then submitted a joint petition for consent
discipline in which respondent admitted that his conduct violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(5),
5.5(a), 5.5(e)(4), 8.1(a), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that David
J. Motter
, Louisiana Bar Roll number 21366, be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of three years, with all but one year and one day deferred.1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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.
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, 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.
04/12/22