In Re: Robert Wiegand, II

Supreme Court of Louisiana
March 15, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: ROBERT WIEGAND, II
No. 2022-B-00043
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN
RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Notice of Discipline in Another
Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule XIX, Section 21 and Motion to Initiate Reciprocal
Discipline Proceedings;
_ _ _ _ _ _
March 15, 2022
Reciprocal discipline imposed. See per curiam.
SJC
JLW
JDH
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
03/15/2022 "See News Release 011 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

03/15/2022
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 2022-B-0043

IN RE: ROBERT WIEGAND, II

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
(“ODC”) has filed a petition seeking the imposition of reciprocal discipline against
respondent, Robert Wiegand, II,1 an attorney licensed to practice law in the States
of Louisiana and Colorado, based upon discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of
Colorado.

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 10, 2021, the ODC received notice that, effective December
15, 2021, William R. Lucero, William R. Lucero, in his capacity as Presiding
Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court for the State of Colorado, publicly
censured respondent in the matter entitled The People of the State of Colorado v.
Robert Wiegand, II , No. 21PDJ081 based on his violation of Rules 1.4(b)
(Communication) and 1.7(a)(2) (Conflict of Interest: Current Clients) of the
Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, as described in the Stipulation Agreement
and Affidavit Containing the Respondent’s Conditional Admission of Misconduct.
2

1 In 2019, this court imposed reciprocal discipline upon respondent in the form of a one year and
one day suspension from the practice of law, fully de ferred, subject to a two- year period of
probation based on discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of Colorado in 2018. In re: Wiegand,
19-0170 (La. 4/8/19), 267 So. 3d 64.
2 The public censure imposed by the Supreme Court of Colorado is subject to the following
conditions: (1) payment of costs in accordance with the parties’ stipulation, and (2) completion of
a minimum of seven hours of CLE in estate planning with the understanding that it is preferred
that some of these credits contain an ethics component.

2

After receiving notice of the Colorado 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 decision issued by the Supreme Court
of Colorado was attached to the motion. On January 10, 2022, 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 this 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 created 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) The imposition of the same discipline by the court
would result in grave injustice or be off ensive 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.

3

In the instant case, respondent has made no showing of infirmities in the
Colorado 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
Colorado 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 r espect to the attorneys over whom we share
supervisory authority”).
Here, there is little doubt that respondent’s conduct would warrant discipline
in Louisiana. Under these circumstances, we agree that reciprocal discipline is
warranted pursuant to Suprem e Court Rule XIX, § 21. Because our rules do not
provide for a public censure in bar disciplinary cases, we will impose a public
reprimand, which is the closest equivalent available under our rules.

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, Robert Wiegand, II , Louisiana Bar Roll number 13460, be publicly
reprimanded.