In Re: Tara Elwell

Supreme Court of Louisiana
February 01, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: TARA ELWELL
No. 2022-B-00390
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Tara Elwell - Applicant Other; Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Joint
Petition for Consent Discipline;
_ _ _ _ _ _
February 01, 2024
Probation extended. Conditions of probation modified. See per curiam.
Crichton, J., concurs in part, dissents in part and assigns reasons.
JLW
JDH
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
02/01/2024 "See News Release 007 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
22-B-0390
I
N RE: TARA ELWELL
A
TTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
R
espondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) submitted a joint
petition for consent discipline to this court. The “Joint Stipulation of Facts” filed by
the parties in connection with that petition provided, “[i]n exchange for the stated
discipline being imposed, Respondent conditionally admits to having knowingly
violated Rules 1.5 (excessive fee), 1.16 (obligations upon termination) of the Rules
of Professional Conduct.” As a sanction, the parties proposed respondent be
suspended from t he practice of law for eighteen months, with all but six months
deferred, subject to one year of probation “with the special condition that during the
year of probation, Respondent will initiate participation in the Louisiana State Bar
Association Fee Dispute Arbitration Program, and will be bound by and comply with
the ruling of the arbitrator.”
On April 20, 2022, a majority of this court accepted the petition. In re: Elwell,
22-0390 (La. 4/20/22), 336 So. 3d 450. Our decree provided:
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline
be accepted and that Tara Elwell, Louisiana Bar Roll
number 31401, be suspended from the practice of law for
eighteen months, with all but six months deferred.
Following the active portion of the suspension, respondent
shall be placed on probation for a period of one year,
subject to the special condition set forth in the Petition for
Consent Discipline. The probationary period shall
commence from the date respondent and the ODC execute
a formal probation plan. Any failure of respondent to
comply with the conditions of probation, or any
misconduct during the probationary period, may be
grounds for making the deferred portion of the suspension
02/01/24

2

executory, or imposing additional discipline, as
appropriate.

Respondent has since completed the active portion of her suspension. Her
probationary period is set to expire on February 6, 2024.
On January 11, 2024, the ODC filed a motion captioned “Motion to Revisit
Probation Terms and/or Obtain Guidance from the Court with Incorporated Request
for Extension of Probation.” In the motion, the ODC explained that respondent
attempted to submit the matter to arbitration through the Louisiana State Bar
Association (“LSBA”) Fee Dispute Arbitration Program, but the LSBA declined to
accept it. The ODC moves this court to revise the special condition of probation to
order respondent to initiate and participate in fee arbitration through a third- party
arbitration service. It further requests her probation be extended to accommodate
this condition.
In opposition, respondent objects to this proposal, pointing out she would be
exposed to significant additional expense which she did not anticipate. She
concludes, “[i]t would be unjust to impose a more onerous special condition on
[respondent] when she never agreed to such a condition.”
Our disciplinary rules and jurisprudence are silent with respect to situations
in which a condition of probation becomes impossible to fulfill due to circumstances
beyond the control of the parties. Nonetheless, La. Const. art. V, § 5(B) grants this
court exclusive original jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary proceedings. See also
Succession of Wallace, 574 So. 2d 348, 350 (La. 1991) (“[t]his court has exclusive
and plenary power to define and regulate all facets of the practice of law, including
the admission of attorneys to the bar, the professional responsibility and conduct of
lawyers, the discipline, suspension and disbarment of lawyers, and the client-
attorney relationship.”).

3

In the exercise of our exclusive and plenary authority, we find it both
necessary and appropriate to revise the conditions of probation. Accordingly, we
will extend respondent’s probation for a period of one year. During that time,
respondent and the ODC shall mutually select a third-party arbitration service. Upon
selection, respondent will initiate participation in fee arbitration and will be bound
by and comply with the ruling of the arbitrator.

DECREE
For the reasons assigned, it is ordered that respondent’s probation shall be
extended for one year, or until February 6, 2025. It is further ordered that during the
extended period of probation, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
shall mutually select a third-party arbitration firm, at respondent’s cost, to perform
the disputed fee arbitration. Upon selection, respondent will initiate participation in
fee arbitration and will be bound by and comply with the ruling of the arbitrator.
Respondent is further ordered to return $75,000 of the disputed fee to her counsel’s
trust account immediately pending a final ruling by the arbitrator. Respondent may
request that this court terminate the extended period of probation early by showing
evidence that the disputed fee issue has been resolved. In all other respects, the
provisions of our judgment in In re: Elwell, 22-0390 (La. 4/20/22), 336 So. 3d 450,
shall remain in effect.