In Re: Lenise Rochelle Williams

Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 08, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: LENISE ROCHELLE WILLIAMS
No. 2022-B-00468
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 08, 2022
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., dissents in part and assigns reasons.
Hughes, J., dissents for reasons assigned by Chief Justice Weimer.
Crichton, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Griffin, J., dissents for reasons assigned by Chief Justice Weimer.
WJC
JTG
JBM
06/08/2022 "See News Release 027 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
22-B-0468
I
N RE: LENISE ROCHELLE WILLIAMS
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
T his disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Lenise Rochelle Williams, an
attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently suspended from practice.
PRI
OR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY
Before we address the current charges, we find it helpful to review
respondent’s prior disciplinary history. Respondent was admitted to the practice of
law in Louisiana in 2005. In 2013, she was publicly reprimanded for failing to
provide competent representation to a client, neglecting a legal matter, and failing to
communicate with a client. In re: Williams, 13-0417 (La. 3/15/13), 109 So. 3d 349.
In 2017, we accepted a joint petition for consent discipline in which
respondent stipulated that she neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with
a client, failed to properly withdraw from a representation, and failed to cooperate
with the ODC in its investigation . For this misconduct, respondent was suspended
from the practice of law for one year and one day, with all but sixty days defer red,
followed by a two-year period of unsupervised probation. In re: Williams, 17-0906
(La. 6/29/17), 222 So. 3d 39 (“Williams I”).
In November 2020, the ODC filed with the disciplinary board a motion and
rule to revoke respondent’s probation, alleging that she practiced law during her
suspension in Williams I and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its efforts to contact
06/08/22

2

her.1 The ODC also alleged that respondent failed to pay the costs assessed against
her in Williams I and failed to comply with her bar membership requirements.
Following a hearing before an adjudicative panel of the disciplinary board, the board
determined that the evidence demonstrated respondent failed to comply with the
terms and conditions of her probation. The board further determined that respondent
engaged in additional misconduct during her probation. Based on these findings, the
board recommended respondent’s probation be revoked and the deferred portion of
the one year and one day suspension imposed in Williams I be made executory. We
subsequently adopted the board’s recommendation, revoked respondent’s probation,
and made the previously deferred portion of the one year and one day suspension
immediately executory. In re: Williams, 21-0613 (La. 6/22/21), 318 So. 3d 36
(“Williams II”).
Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the misconduct
at issue in the instant proceeding.

FORMAL CHARGES
Respondent was suspended in Williams I from June 29, 2017 until she was
reinstated on April 26, 2018. During this period of suspension, respondent prepared
and filed documents with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
in at least nineteen trademark applications, approved at least five examiner’s
amendments in trademark applications, filed a notice of opposition in a trademark
trial and appeal board proceeding, and failed to inform all of her clients that she was
ineligible to practice before the USPTO.
On November 21, 2019, the ODC received notice that respondent submitted
an affidavit of resignation to the USPTO on September 13, 2019. The director of

1 Respondent’s unauthorized practice of law is the subject of the formal charges discussed in this
opinion.

3

the Office of Enrollment and Discipline filed a disciplinary complaint against
respondent, alleging that she had violated the USPTO Rules of Professional
Conduct. The complaint specifically alleged that contrary to USPTO trademark
signature regulations and guidance, respondent impermissibly entered ten electronic
signatures of her clients. The associated documents were considered to have been
filed with false signatures.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In May 2021, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging that
her conduct set forth above violated the following provisions of the Rules of
Professional Conduct: Rules 1.16(a)(1)
(a lawyer shall not represent a client if the
representation will result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other
law), 5.5(a) (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law), 8.4(a) (violation of the
Rules of Professional Conduct) , and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).
Respondent failed to answer the formal charges. Accordingly, the factual
allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and
convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). No formal
hearing was held, but the parties were given an opportunity to file with the hearing
committee written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue of sanctions.
Respondent filed nothing for the committee’s consideration.

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the ODC’s deemed admitted submission, the hearing
committee made factual findings consistent with the factual allegations in the formal
charges, with one minor exception regarding the date of her reinstatement. Based

4

on those facts, the committee determined respondent violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.
The committee determined respondent intentionally violated duties owed to
her clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. Although the
record contains no evidence of actual harm, respondent’s conduct caused potential
harm to her clients and the legal system. The failure to advise her clients of her
suspension was a disservice to her clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal
profession. By continuing to pra ctice law during her suspension, inappropriately
signing documents on behalf of her clients, and failing to meet the minimum
requirements necessary for a practicing attorney, respondent violated the basic duties
owed by an attorney to the legal profession and to the public.
With respect to a baseline sanction, the committee relied on Standard 8.1(a)
of the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, which provides that
disbarment is appropriate when an attorney “intentionally or knowingly violates the
terms of a prior disciplinary order and such violation causes injury or potential injury
to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession.” In aggravation, the
committee found a prior disciplinary record, a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern
of misconduct, and multiple offenses. The committee determined that no mitigating
factors are present.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the committee noted that the
unauthorized practice of law has resulted in a wide range of sanct ions imposed by
the court, from suspensions to permanent disbarment. The committee concluded
that given the unique nature of the filings in this case, respondent’s conduct is not as
egregious as that seen in cases in which the court imposed disbarment or permanent
disbarment. Accordingly, the committee recommended respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for an additional three years. The committee also
recommended she be assessed with the costs and expenses of this proceeding.

5

Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s
report. Therefore, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G), the disciplinary
board submitted the committee’s report to the court for review.

DISCUSSION
Bar disciplinary matters fall within the original jurisdiction of this court. La.
Const. art. V, § 5(B). Consequently, we act as triers of fact and conduct an
independent review of the record to determine whether the alleged misconduct has
been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re: Banks, 09-1212 (La. 10/2/09),
18 So. 3d 57.
In cases in which the lawyer does not answer the formal charges, the factual
allegations of tho se charges are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule XIX , §
11(E)(3). Thus, the ODC bears no additional burden to prove the factual allegations
contained in the formal charges after those charges have been deemed admitted.
However, the language of § 11(E)(3) does not encompass legal conclusions that flow
from the factual allegations. If the legal conclusion the ODC seeks to prove (i.e., a
violation of a specific rule) is not readily apparent from the deemed admitted facts,
additional evidence may need to be submitted in order to prove the legal conclusions
that flow from the admitted factual allegations. In re: Donnan , 01 -3058 (La.
1/10/03), 838 So. 2d 715.
The record in this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent
practiced law after being suspended. This conduct amounts to a violation of the
Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.
Having found evidence of professional misconduct, we now turn to a
determination of the appropriate sanction for respondent’s actions. In determining
a sanction, we are mindful that discipli nary proceedings are designed to maintain
high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession,

6

and deter future misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So. 2d 1173
(La. 1987). The discipline to be imposed de pends upon the facts of each case and
the seriousness of the offenses involved considered in light of any aggravating and
mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So. 2d 520
(La. 1984).
In practicing law while suspended, re spondent knowingly violated dut ies
owed to her clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. Her
misconduct caused no actual harm , but the potential for harm was great. The
applicable baseline sanction is disbarment.
Aggravating factors include a prior disciplinary record, a dishonest or selfish
motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and substantial experience in the
practice of law. No mitigating factors are evident from the record.
Considering the facts of this case , we find the three -year suspension
recommended by the hearing committee is appropriate.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee,
and considering the record , it is ordered that Lenise Rochelle Williams, Louisiana
Bar Roll number 29706, be and she hereby is suspended from the practice of law for
a period of three years . 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.