In Re: George Randy Trelles

Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 22, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: GEORGE RANDY TRELLES
No. 2022-B-00534
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 22, 2022
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
JTG
JLW
JDH
SJC
WJC
JBM
PDG
06/22/2022 "See News Release 028 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
22-B-0534
I
N RE: GEORGE RANDY TRELLES
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, George Randy Trelles, an
attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently on interim suspension
pursuant to a joint motion of the parties filed in November 2019. In re: Trelles, 19-
1775 (La. 11/19/19), 307 So. 3d 174.
UNDE
RLYING FACTS
Count I
Between June 3, 2016 and October 12, 2016, respondent was ineligible to
practice law for failure to comply with the mandatory continuing legal education
requirements. On June 7, 2016, while he was ineligible, respondent filed a motion
for a status conference in the 19th JDC.
Respondent failed to respond to the ODC’s notice of the related disciplinary
complaint, which was delivered to his bar registration address on August 31, 2016.
A sworn statement, scheduled to take place on June 13, 2017, was resched uled at
respondent’s request. On September 5, 2017, as the statement was set to begin,
respondent contacted the ODC and advised that he would not be attending because
he was in court.
06/22/22

2

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 5.5(a) (engaging in the unauthorized
practice of law) and 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation).

Count II
In 2014, Alexandra Tolbert hired respondent to represent her against a charge
of 2nd offense DWI. Respondent was paid $5,000 for the representation. Thereafter,
Ms. Tolbert left messages with his office and on his voicemail, but respondent failed
to return her calls. Ms. Tolbert also sent e mails and text messages to respo ndent,
but she received no response. In addition, respondent failed to appear for three of
Ms. Tolbert’s four court dates. When respondent did not appear for court on October
5, 2016, the judge informed Ms. Tolbert that respondent was ineligible to pract ice
law. Ms. Tolbert attempted to reach respondent to request a refund, but he did not
respond. Ms. Tolbert has since hired new counsel.
Respondent failed to respond to the ODC’s notice of the related disciplinary
complaint, which was hand-delivered to him on February 16, 2017. A sworn
statement, scheduled to take place on June 13, 2017, was rescheduled at respondent’s
request. On September 5, 2017, as the statement was set to begin, respondent
contacted the ODC and advised that he would not be attending because he was in
court.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: R ules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with
a client), 1.5(f) (failure to refund an unearned fee), and 8.1(c).

3

Count III
In 2016, Dr. Ronnie Mathews hired respondent to represent his son, Paul,
against charges of domestic abuse battery as well as entering and remaining after
forbidden. Dr. Mathews paid respondent $4,500 for the representation. Thereafter,
respondent failed to appear for the bond hearing. Although he sent another attorney
in his place, the bond had already been set by the time the attorney arrived to court.
Respondent also failed to communicate with Paul and provided inaccurate bond
information to a family member. Dr. Mathews requested a detailed accounting on
several occasions, to no avail, and respondent did not return the unearned fee.
Respondent failed to respond to the ODC’s notice of the related disciplinary
complaint, which was delivered to his bar registration address on January 24, 2017.
A second notice was delivered to respondent on February 16, 2017. Again, he did
not provide a response. A sworn statement, scheduled to take place on June 13, 2017,
was rescheduled at respondent’s request. On September 5, 2017, as the statement
was set to begin, respondent contacted the ODC and advised that he would not be
attending because he was in court.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f), and 8.1(c).

Count IV
On February 14, 2017, respondent was involved in an automobile accident,
after which he was arrested fo r DWI, reckless operation, and failure to maintain
control. Respondent refused to submit to a Breathalyzer test.
Respondent failed to respond to the ODC’s notice of the related disciplinary
complaint, which was delivered to his bar registration address on August 24, 2017.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 8.1(c) and 8.4(b) (commission of a

4

criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or
fitness as a lawyer).

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In May 2019, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent as set forth
above. Respondent, through counsel, answered the formal charges and largely
admitted the alleged misconduct, but asserted the presence of substantial mitigating
circumstances which warrant consideration. Respondent noted that he successfully
completed substance abuse treatment at St. Christopher’s Addiction Wellness
Center, after which he moved to a “sober house” for continued m onitoring and
treatment. Respondent also entered into a five -year recovery agreement with the
Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (“JLAP”) on January 15, 2019.

Mitigation Hearing
A hearing in mitigation was conducted by the hearing committee on
November 21, 2019. At the beginning of the hearing, respondent admitted that he
violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged . The hearing proceeded on
mitigation and on the issue of amounts of unearned fees owed to Ms. Tolbert and
Dr. Mathews. At the time of the hearing, respondent was in compliance with his
JLAP recovery agreement.

RESPONDENT’S TESTIMONY
With respect to Count II, respondent indicated that he did perform some work
on behalf of Ms. Tolbert. Respondent noted that he “took care” of a bench warrant
issued as a result of his failure to appear in court on behalf of Ms. Tolbert, and she
was not arrested. Respondent admitted that he owes Ms. Tolbert a reimbursement
for unearned fees, but noted that he performed sixteen hours of work on her behalf,

5

earning $3,000 in fees. Respondent testified that he apologized to Ms. Tolbert and
made arrangements to provide her a $2,000 refund.1
With respect to Count III, respondent admitted that he had accepted payment
for the represe ntation and failed to fulfill his obligation to his client. R espondent
indicated that he had not determined how much he owed or when he could refund
the unearned portion of fees to Dr. Mathews.2
Respondent referred to himself as an alcoholic. Respondent testified that he
began drinking heavily after his wife left him in 2016, consuming a bottle of vodka
and a twenty-four pack of beer on a daily basis. Respondent noted that he attends
approximately twenty -eight AA meetings per month and that his attendan ce is
reported to JLAP. Respondent indicated that he suffers from various medical
conditions, including depression. Respondent added that he lives in a sober living
home and owned no immovable property.

B
UDDY STOCKWELL’S TESTIMONY
Mr. Stockwell testified that respondent has done “excellent” in terms of
compliance and completing program goals, and that he was “participating in JLAP
at a high level.” Mr. Stockwell added: “All of that said and all that adds up to the
fact that it is my professional cli nical team in their assessment of Mr. Trelles’
progress, clearly from a clinical standpoint, he’s absolutely fit to practice law.” Mr.
Stockwell noted that respondent was not a threat to the public as long as he remained
compliant with JLAP. When asked if he would recommend additional treatment for
respondent’s addiction, Mr. Stockwell responded: “We don’t see any reason at this

1 Email correspondence from Ms. Tolbert confirms that she accepted his offer.
2 After the hearing, respondent introduced a document in which he offered to reimburse Dr.
Mathews $2,000 in fees at a rate of at least $50 per month if he returned to the practice of law. In
response to his offer, Dr. Mathews asked respondent to refund an amount reflecting the services
he “did not perform.” It is unclear whether Dr. Mathews accepted the offer.

6

particular time, no indication, not even a scintilla of doubt in how he’s doing, that
would require us to think that he needs to do something additional.”

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the
hearing committee indicated that respondent presented evidence to show that he
suffered from serious medical, psychological, and addiction-related illness at the
time of his misconduct. The committee found that while there were contributing
negative consequences arising from respondent’s divorce and custody proceedings,
having occurred during the relevant time period, the greatest contributing factor that
led to his inability to manage his professional obligation to clients was respondent’s
serious and disabling alcohol addiction. The committee indicated that respondent
recognizes his addiction as well as the issues that led to his misconduct, adding that
he is dedicated to his JLAP and AA obligations, and has excelled in these programs.
The committee noted that respondent is taking advantage of reliable resources that
will help him maintain sobriety, including JLAP monitoring, AA meetings, friends,
and counselors who demand accountability from him.
The committee determined that respondent’s failure to maintain his obligation
to protect and represent Ms. Tolbert and Mr. Mathews is inexcusable, regardless of
his circumstances. During this period of time, attorneys were helping respondent
with other client matters. Such resources would have minimized or eliminated the
threat of harm in Counts II and III, but respondent did not use appropriate discretion.
The correspondence from Ms. Tolbert and Dr. Mathews reflect their frustration over
respondent’s failure to communicate with them. He failed to address their legitimate
requests for information about fees, intentionally disregarded their requests for
information, and failed to provide them with refunds. However, Ms. Tolbert and Dr.

7

Mathews seemed sympathetic toward respondent and wished him well. Respondent
apologized and appeared to be genuinely remorseful for his conduct.
The committee determined that independent of the admission that he violated
Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f), 5.5(a), 8.1(c), and 8.4(b), the evidence supports a finding that
respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.
The committee determined that respondent violated duties owed to his clients
and the legal profession. He acted negligently and intentionally. His misconduct
caused actual and potential harm.
Regarding Count II, Ms. Tolbert was harmed when she was made the subject
of a bench warrant. Although no arrest was made, her knowledge of the existence
of the warrant caused her anxiety, distress, and worry. Ms. Tolbert’s unanswered
correspondence to respondent reflects both an urgency and a disappointment over
his failure to communicate with her. Ms. Tolbert suffered actual harm by paying for
legal services she did not receive. Although respondent has agreed to reimburse a
portion of the fees that were paid, Ms. Tolbert has not been fully reimbursed.
As to Count III, respondent generally failed in representi ng Mr. Mathews,
effectively abandoning his client. Respondent ignored his multiple phone calls and
certified mail requests for communication. He also failed to meet with Mr. Mathews
prior to a bond hearing, and then failed to appear for the hearing. Respondent’s
conduct harmed Mr. Mathews, who suffered anxiety, worry, and distress as a result
of respondent’s failures. His conduct also harmed Dr. Mathews , who paid for
services that were not provided. Although respondent agreed to reimburse $2,000
of the fees that were paid, he has not provided full repayment because of his financial
circumstances. As such, Dr. Mathews is still awaiting reimbursement.
After considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the
committee determined that the baseline sanction is suspension. In aggravation, the

8

committee found the following factors present: a prior disciplinary record 3 and
substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 1990). In further
aggravation, the committee found “actual harm to clients, pote ntial harm to the
public (DWI), and conduct unbecoming the profession.” In mitigation, the
committee found “JLAP compliance, acknowledgement of Rule violations,
acknowledgement of debts owed to clients, and remorse.”
After further c onsidering this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the committee recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for one year and one day, with six months deferred, retroactive to the
date of his interim suspension. The committee also recommended that respondent be
subject to a period of probation to run concu rrently with his JLAP recovery
agreement, and to include the following conditions: (1) compliance with JLAP
contractual obligations; (2) satisfactory reimbursement of unearned fees to Ms.
Tolbert and Dr. Mathews; and (3) payment of all costs associated with these
disciplinary proceedings.

Remand and Supplemental Hearing Committee Report
On May 13, 2020, the ODC filed a notice of objecti on and incorporated a
motion to remand for consideration of new evidence regarding respondent’s status
with JLAP. On June 23, 2020 , the disciplinary board granted the motion and
remanded the matter to the committee for consideration of the new evidence. The
matter was reset for hearing, which occurred on April 28, 2021. With the exception
of respondent, no witnesses appeared at the hearing.
The committee determined the new evidence was compelling, relevant, and
clearly demonstrated that respondent violated his JLAP agreement. The committee

3 In 2013, respondent was publicly reprimanded for giving false statements to the Office of Public
Safety. In 2016, respondent received a private admonition for neglecting legal matters , failing to
communicate with clients, and failing to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation.

9

noted that although respondent evinced an ability to understand and respond to
questions, his testimony was often confusing, off-topic, and non-responsive. When
confronted with his positive test results, respondent testified that he had consumed
only wine coolers and no other alcoholic beverages. Based on the evidence
presented, the committee did not believe respondent was being truthful about his
alcohol consumption.
The committee noted that under the JLAP recovery agreement, respondent
agreed to abstain from the use of alcohol and agreed to cooperate with JLAP.
However, respondent revoked JLAP’s authority to discuss his compliance with third
parties, including the ODC.
The committee recalled the testimony of Mr. Stockwell, who was neither
subpoenaed nor asked to attend the original hearing by either party. Mr. Stockwell
indicated that he was proud of respondent’s progress and particularly proud of his
cooperation and compliance with treatment. Moved by Mr. Stockwell’s testimony,
the committee based its original recommendation in part on his optimism. In his
latest correspondence, however, Mr. Stockwell indicated that respondent failed his
urine and blood screening, nec essitating a multidisciplinary inpatient professional
assessment to be cooperatively facilitated through JLAP. Respondent declined the
assessment. The committee acknowledged Mr. Stockwell’s palpable sadness and
disappointment in respondent’s relapse.
Respondent admitted that he had indeed relapsed, noting that the stress of the
COVID-19 outbreak led to his eventual non-compliance with the JLAP agreement.
Respondent indicated that he currently works at a hardware store as a general clerk
but has not made any attempt to reimburse his former clients. Respondent explained
that he does not make enough money to repay his clients and has a teenage daughter
whom he must financially support. Respondent added that he suffers from diabetes,
heart issues, a shoulder in need of surgery, failing knees, and depression.

10

While sympathetic for his current state, the committee expressed concern that
respondent’s medical conditions and the plethora of medication he takes on a regular
basis to control his symptoms may impact his ability to practice law. The committee
added that respondent presented no compelling evidence in mitigation, concluding:
This is a sad case. It is difficult to be in the presence of
Mr. Trelles and not have compassion and sympathy for
what he has become, particularly when juxtaposed to what
could have been. By all accounts, Mr. Trelles was a good
lawyer. His addiction to alcohol has been catastrophic to
his promising career and personal life. There is a nice guy
in there somewhere, but the once competent attorney is
cloaked beyond recognition.

He was once very cooperative with those who sought to
help him. Buddy Stockwell was impressed with Mr.
Trelles at one point, and that is no easy accomplishment.
Mr. Trelles appears to have taken a dif ferent approach
since the committee first met him in 2019. Where he was
once honest about his addiction, he is now refusing to
admit, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, that he
has returned to drinking heavily. He received praise for
his JLAP compliance, but now has abandoned the program
altogether.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, including his prior disciplinary
record, the committee determined that respondent remains unfit to practice law and
recommended he be suspended for one year and one day. The committee further
recommended that respondent reimburse Ms. Tolbert and Dr. Mathews, and that he
pay all costs associated with these proceedings.
The ODC objected to the hearing committee’s recommended sanction.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation
After review, the disciplinary board determined that the factual findings in the
hearing committee’s original report and the factual statements in its supplemental
report do not appear to be manifestly erroneous and are supported by the record. The
board adopted these findings with a limited c larification regarding respondent’s

11

practice status since 2018.4 The board acknowledged that respondent has stipulated
to violating the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged, and noted that these
stipulations must be given effect unless they are withdr awn. In re: Torry, 10-0837
(La. 10/19/10), 48 So. 3d 1038.
The board then determined respondent violated duties owed to his clients, the
public, the legal system, and the legal profession. His conduct was negligent in some
respects, but in most respects knowing, if not intentional. By practicing law while
ineligible, respondent could have created disruption in or affected the validity of any
legal action or proceeding in which he participated. His lack of diligence with Ms.
Tolbert and Mr. Mathews caused potential delays in their matters and caused them
concern and anxiety over their status with criminal authorities. His failure to return
unearned fees caused harm to Ms. Tolbert and Dr. Mathews. His collision with a
vehicle while he was intoxicated caused minor actual harm and the potential for
greater harm to the public. Such criminal behavior reflects adversely on the legal
profession. Respondent also failed to cooperate with the ODC’s investigations.
Such behavior potentially causes unnecessary expenditure of the limited resources
of the disciplinary agency and delays in the resolution of complaints, all of which
damage the legal profession.
After considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , the
board determined the applicable baseline sanction is suspension. In aggravation, the
board found the following factors present: a prior disciplinary record, a pattern of
misconduct, multiple offenses, vulnerability of the victims (Ms. Tolbert and Mr.
Mathews), substantial experience in the practice of law, and illegal conduct . In
mitigation, the board found the following factors present: personal or emotional

4 In its original report, the committee had indicated that there was lack of evidence in the record to
confirm that respondent voluntarily surrende red his license in July 2018. However, r espondent
testified, and the records reflect, that he changed his status to inactive on July 1, 2018. Respondent
further testified that he briefly returned to active status solely to move to be place d on interim
suspension. The bar rolls reflect that respondent returned to active status on September 23, 2019.

12

problems,5 full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board and a cooperative
attitude toward the proceedings, 6 character or reputation, physical disability
(affecting his failure to cooperate with the 2017 investigations),7 and remorse.
After further considering this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the board recommended respondent be suspended from the practice of
law for eighteen months, retroactive to the date of his interim suspension. The board
also recommended respondent be ordered to make restitution to Ms. Tolbert and Dr.
Mathews or participate in the Louisiana State Bar Association’s (“LSBA”) fee
dispute resolution program. The board further recommended respondent be assessed
with the costs and expenses of these proceedings.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the disciplinary board’s
recommendation.

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. While we are not bound in any way by the findings and

5 Respondent testified that after his wife left with his children in April 2016, he went through
divorce and custody proceedings. Then, following the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020, respondent
had to move from his sober living house in order to be in a more isolated environment due to his
multiple medical conditions.
6 Although respondent did not respond to the complaints during the ODC’s investigation, after
formal charges were filed, respondent cooperated fully, including joining in the motion for interim
suspension and stipulating to the charges against him.
7 Respondent suffered a series of medical events between December 2016 and October 2017.
Based on his testimony and the medical exhibits provided, respondent fractured his hand in a fall
in December 2016 and was diagnosed with vertigo; he underwent hand surgery in January 2017;
he suffered a heart attack and underwent a procedure to insert five stents in June 2017; he
underwent biopsies of his vocal cords in July 2017; he underwent surgery to remove a mass from
his chest in August 2017; and he was hospitalized for pneumonia in October 2017.

13

recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, we have held the
manifest error standard is applicable to the committee’s factual findings. See In re:
Caulfield, 96 -1401 (La. 11/25/96), 683 So. 2d 714; In re: Pardue , 93-2865 (La.
3/11/94), 633 So. 2d 150.
The underlying facts of this matter are not in dispute, having been stipulated
to by the parties. R espondent neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with
clients, failed to refund unearned fees, pr acticed law while ineligible to do so, was
arrested for DWI, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation.
Respondent also admitted to violating the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged,
and the record supports those rule violations.
Disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain high standards of conduct,
protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession, and deter future
misconduct. In re: Hingel, 20-0992 (La. 11/10/20), 303 So. 3d 1029. The discipline
to be imposed depends upon the facts of each case and the seriousness of the offenses
involved considered in light of any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In re:
Smothers, 20 -0244 (La. 6/22/20), 297 So. 3d 743.
The purpose of lawyer
disciplinary proceedings is not so much to punish the attorney as it is to maintain
appropriate standards of professional conduct in order to protect the public and the
administration of justice. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Powell, 439 So. 2d 415 (La.
1983).
Respondent violated duties owed to his clients, the public, the legal system,
and the legal profession. His misconduct was at least grossly negligent, if not
knowing, and caused actual harm to his clients. The baseline sanction for this type
of misconduct is suspension. The record supports the aggravating and mitigating
factors found by the disciplinary board.
In 2009, we considered the case of In re: Baer , 09-1795 (La. 11/20/09), 21
So. 3d 941, which involved an attorney who was twice arrested for DWI. She signed

14

a JLAP recovery agreement, but thereafter failed to comply with its requirements.
In our opinion, we reviewed the sanctions imposed in prior DWI cases and provided
the following guidance:
We have imposed sanctions ranging from actual period s
of suspension to fully deferred suspensions in prior cases
involving attorneys who drive while under the influence
of alcohol. However, as a general rule, we tend to impose
an actual suspension in those instances in which multiple
DWI offenses are at issue, as well as in cases in which the
DWI stems from a substance abuse problem that appears
to remain unresolved.

Applying these precepts to Ms. Baer, we concluded that a one year and
one day suspension, with no portion of the suspension deferred, was appropriate in
light of her two DWI arrests and the fact that her substance use disorder was
unresolved. We further noted:
Should respondent wish to resume the practice of law in
the future, she will be required to go through the
reinstatement process se t forth in Supreme Court Rule
XIX § 24 and demonstrate to our satisfaction that she is
healthy enough to resume the representation of her clients
in a competent fashion.

In subsequent cases in which attorneys with substance use disorders are not
participating in JLAP or otherwise able to prove their substance abuse problems have
been resolved, we have consistently imposed one year and one day suspensions, with
no time deferred.
8
In light of his relapse, respondent is no longer compliant with his JLAP
recovery agreement. Therefore, his substance abuse problem remains unresolved.
Considering the guidance set forth in Baer , and the application of Baer in similar

8 See In re: Anzalone , 17-0387 (La. 5/12/17), 219 So. 3d 311 (one year and one day suspension
imposed upon an attorney who was twice convicted of DWI and tested positive for cocaine) ; In
re: James, 12-2701 (La. 3/1/13), 108 So. 3d 747 (one year and one day suspension imposed upon
an attorney who was twice convicted of DWI where the attor ney stopped participating in JLAP);
In re: Guidry, 11-1208 (La. 9/23/11), 71 So. 3d 256 (one year and one day suspension imposed
upon an attorney who was twice arrested for DW I and once arrested for possession of illegal
drugs where the attorney was not participating in JLAP).

15

matters, we agree that respondent should be required to demonstrate his fitness to
practice law in a formal reinstatement proceeding. At that time, respondent will
have the opportunity to demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction that he is healthy
enough to return to the practice of law.
Under the circumstances, we will accept the board’s recommendation and
suspend respondent from the practice of law for eighteen months, retroactive to
November 19, 2019, the date of his interim suspension.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee
and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that George Randy
Trelles, Louisiana Bar Roll number 20059 , be suspended from the practice of law
for eighteen months, retroactive to November 19, 2019, the date of his interim
suspension. It is further ordered that with respect to his clients subject of the formal
charges, respondent shall either make full restitution or participate in the Louisiana
State Bar Association’s Fee Dispute Resolution Program and refund any fees as
ordered by the arbitrator. 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.