In Re: Erin L. Tyrer

Supreme Court of Louisiana
February 14, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: ERIN L. TYRER
No. 2022-B-01632
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Office of Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and
Recommendations (Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
February 14, 2023
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
PDG
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
02/14/2023 "See News Release 007 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2022
-B-1632
I
N RE: ERIN L. TYRER
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, Erin L. Tyrer, an attorney
licensed to practice law in Louisiana , but currently on interim suspension pursuant
to a joint motion of the parties. In re: Tyrer, 20-1220 (La. 11/4/20), 303 So. 3d 646.
UNDE
RLYING FACTS
The following facts are not in dispute, having been stipulated to by the parties.
In June 2019, respondent was telephoned by a friend who indicated that she
was being placed under arrest for DWI. Respondent drove to the scene and began
seeking information about the arrest. The on-scene officer instructed respondent to
leave several times, but she continued to argue with him. At this point, the officer
detected an odor of alcohol on respondent’s breath and asked for her driver’s license.
Respondent refused to submit to a field sobriety test, and the officer attempted to
place her under arrest. After initially resisting his efforts, respondent submitted to a
field sobriety test and a Breathalyzer test, which showed a blood alcohol level of
.129g%. Respondent was arrested and charged with DWI and resisting an officer.
Respondent self-reported her arrest to the ODC. The ODC referred her to the
Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (“JLAP”) for an evaluation. Based on the
information provided by respondent at her initial evaluation, the evaluator concluded
that respondent did not have a substance use disorder requiring treatment. However,
02/14/23

2

respondent was recommended for counseling regarding other issues. During one
such counseling session, respondent acknow ledged that she recently used cocaine
and had used it historically, something she failed to truthfully disclose to the JLAP
evaluator previously.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In June 2020, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging that
her conduct as set forth above violated the following provisions of the Rules of
Professional Conduct: Rules 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct)
and 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the law yer’s
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer).
Prior to the hearing, respondent and the ODC filed a joint stipulation of facts
and rule violations.1 In this document, respondent admitted to the facts set forth in
the formal charges, with limited variation, and admitted that she violated the Rules
of Professional Conduct as charged. The parties stipulated that she violated duties
owed to the public; that her actions were at all times knowing; and that her conduct
caused the potential for harm to others and actual harm to the legal profession. The
parties also stipulated to the presence of aggravating and mitigating factors, all of
which are outlined in the disciplinary board’s report. The matter then proceeded to
a mitigation hearing, whi ch was conducted by the hearing committee on July 2,
2021.

Hearing in Mitigation
The ODC introduced documentary evidence at the hearing, including a JLAP
report showing that respondent completed an inpatient treatment program a t Pine

1 See In re: Torry, 10-0837 (La. 10/19/10), 48 So. 3d 1038 (respondent and the ODC are free to
enter into stipulations, and “effect must be given to them unless they are withdrawn.”).

3

Grove Behavioral Health as well as an IOP program at the Center for Dependency ,
Addiction, and Rehabilitation. The ODC also introduced a copy of a five-year JLAP
recovery agreement signed by respondent on February 1, 2021. The ODC also called
Jessica Duplantis, Clinical Case Manager for JLAP, to testify before the committee.

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, the
hearing committee acknowledged the stipulations agreed upon by the parties. These
stipulations included facts and rule violations. Specifically, the parties stipulated
that respondent’s conduct, as set forth in the formal charges, violated Rules 8.4(a)
and 8.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Based on these findings, the committee determined respondent violated duties
owed to the public. She acted knowingly and her misconduct caused potential harm
to the legal profession and the general public. After then considering the ABA’s
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , the committee determined the baseline
sanction is suspension.
The committee noted that during the hearing, respondent was very remorseful
for her actions. The committee added that she has no prior disciplinary record and
continues treatment for substance abuse in Colorado. The committee also found it
notable that respondent was not arrested or convicted for the use of cocaine.
The committee noted that of the cases cited by the ODC in its pre -hearing
memorandum, the most relevant is In re: Baer , 09-1795 (La. 11/20/09), 21 So. 3d
941, wherein the court indicated: “[A]s 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.” The committee noted that respondent engaged in only one
instance of DWI and is addressing her substance use issues, but she also admitted to

4

using cocaine and, initially, was not fully candid with JLAP regarding her cocaine
use. The committee concluded that an actual period of suspension is warranted, but
due to the voluntary admission of her cocaine use, the steps she has taken to address
her substance abuse issues, the remorse for her actions, and the lack of prior
discipline, she should not be required to apply for reinstatement.
Considering all of the above, the committee recommended respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for one year, retroactive to the date of her interim
suspension, and that she be assessed with all costs of this proceeding.
The ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s report, asserting that
the committee should have recommended a suspension of more than one year so as
to require respondent to apply for reinstatement. Alternatively, the ODC argued, the
committee should have recommended a suspension of more than one year, with all
but one year deferred and retroactive to her interim suspension, subject to a period
of probation to coincide with the duration of the JLAP agreement.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation
After review, the disciplinary board determined that the hearing committee’s
findings of fact are supported by the record and are not manifestly erroneous, as they
are largely based upon respondent’s stipulations. The board then acknowledged that
respondent has stipulated to violating Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(b), as charged.
The board further acknowledged the following stipulations by the parties:
respondent violated duties owed to the public; her actions were at all times knowing;
and her conduct caused the potential for harm to others and actual harm to the legal
profession. After considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions,
the board determined that the applicable baseline sanction is suspension.
The parties stipulated to the following aggravating factor: “lack of full candor
and disclosure during her JLAP evaluation.” In mitigation, the parties stipulated to

5

the following factors: absence of a prior disciplinary record, personal and emotional
problems, “ultimate good faith efforts to rectify the underlying substance use
disorders,” a reputation for good character, interim rehabilitation,2 and remorse.
In further mitigation, the parties stipulated to a substance abuse disorder that
caused the m isconduct and for which respondent sought and obtained appropriate
JLAP-approved treatment, followed by authorized monitoring. With regard to this
stipulation, the board noted that the ODC raised valid concerns about respondent’s
adherence to JLAP monitoring. The board noted that the JLAP agreement, signed
by respondent five months prior to the hearing, requires that she have an Alcoholics
Anonymous (“AA”) or Narcotics Anonymous (“NA”) sponsor , with long-term
recovery, and that she diligently work the steps of the program with a sponsor. Ms.
Duplantis testified that respondent still did not have a sponsor. Next, the board noted
that the JLAP agreement requires respondent to meet in person with a JLAP monitor
on a monthly basis. Because respondent lives in Colorado, Ms. Duplantis serves as
the JLAP monitor, long-distance from Louisiana. Finally, the board noted that the
JLAP compliance report for the first three months of the JLAP agreement reflects
that respondent was administratively non-compliant.3 The board indicated that she
has since corrected her deficiencies, and by the time of oral argument before the
board, JLAP reported that respondent was in full compliance with the JLAP
agreement and the expectation was that she would remain compliant.
Like the committee, the board also took guidance from Baer. In addition, the
board recognized that the court has imposed fully deferred suspensions in cases

2 The board noted that interim rehabilitation is no longer recognized as a factor in the ABA
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.

3 Ms. Duplantis confirmed that within the first quarter, respondent missed thirteen check -ins and
was late submitting three out of four reports. During the first two months of the se cond quarter,
respondent missed eleven check-ins. In a provider report dated May 2021, respondent’s counselor
reported that respondent missed two of four required group sessions and found her non-compliant
with treatment that month. In February 2021, respondent attended an appointment with the nurse
practitioner handling her medical management, but she missed the next-scheduled appointment in
May 2021. Respondent told Ms. Duplantis that the medical facility had cancelled the appointment.

6

involving illegal drug use. For example, in In re: Arata, 14 -1695 (La. 10/31/14),
150 So. 3d 302, an attorney with a history of chronic pain related to his hemophilia
was arrested for possession of opiates. Four days later, the attorney entered
Palmetto, where he tested positive for hydrocodone and cocaine . During the
evaluation, he admitted that his drug of choice was Vicodin. He also admitted that
he smoked marijuana for pain relief and insomnia. He added that he tried cocaine
once in college and again in March 2012. At the conclusion of the evaluation,
respondent was diagnosed with opioid dependence and cocaine abuse. After
successfully completing a ninety -day recovery program, he signed a five -year
recovery agreement with JLAP. For his misconduct, the court suspended him from
the practice of law for three years, fully deferred, subject to a f ive-year period of
probation to coincide with a newly executed five-year JLAP agreement.
Following careful consideration of respondent’s misconduct and subsequent
treatment and monitoring, the board recommended respondent be suspended from
the practice of law for eighteen months, retroactive to the effective date of her
interim suspension, with all but one year deferred, with the following conditions:
1. Upon reinstatement after the active portion of her suspension, respondent shall
be subject to a probationary period coinciding with the term of her current,
five-year JLAP monitoring agreement executed in February 2021;
2. Respondent shall at all times remain in compliance with her current JLAP
monitoring agreement, with periodic reports to be provided to the ODC; and
3. Any failure of respondent to comply with her current JLAP monitoring
agreement or any other conditions of probation or any misconduct during the
deferral or probationary periods will be grounds for making the deferred
suspension executory, or for imposing additional discipline, as appropriate.
Finally, the board recommended respondent be assessed with the costs and
expenses of this proceeding.

7

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
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.
Respondent has stipulated that s he engaged in professional misconduct by
driving while intoxicated and by using cocaine. In doing so, respondent has violated
the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges and as set forth
in the joint stipulation submitted by the parties. Therefore, the sole question
presented for the c ourt’s consideration is the appropriate sanction for this
misconduct.
In determining the sanction, we are mindful that disciplinary proceedings are
designed to maintain high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the
integrity of the profession, and deter future misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n
v. Reis, 513 So. 2d 1173 (La. 1987). 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. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v.
Whittington, 459 So. 2d 520 (La. 1984).

8

The record supports a finding that respondent knowingly violated duties owed
to the public and the legal profession. Her actions had the potential to cause harm
to others and caused actual harm to the legal profession. The applicable baseline
sanction is suspension. The record supports the aggravating and mitigating factors
as stipulated to by the parties.
In determining an appropriate sanction, we find guidance from the case of In
re: Baer, 09-1795 (La. 11/20/09), 21 So. 3d 941. In Baer, we stated the following
with respect to appropriate sanctions for DWI offenses:
We have imposed sanctions ranging from actual periods
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.

After self-reporting her arrest to the ODC, respondent reached out to JLAP
and followed their recommendations for evaluation and treatment. Respondent then
signed a five-year JLAP recovery agreement on February 1, 2021. Despite the initial
deficiencies with compliance, JLAP reports that she is now fully compliant with the
agreement. The disciplinary board’s recommended sanction includes a probationary
period that coincides with the duration of the agreement, which will encourage her
commitment towards recovery and protect the public by providing a mechanism to
remove her from practice if she relapses into substance abuse in the future.
Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case , we will s uspend
respondent from the practice of law for eighteen months, with a ll but one year
deferred, subject to the conditions set forth in the board’s report. We will further
order that respondent’s suspension run retroactive to November 4, 2020, the date of
her interim suspension.

9

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee
and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Erin L. Tyrer ,
Louisiana Bar Roll number 37340, be and she hereby is suspended from the practice
of law for a period of eighteen months, with all but one year deferred, subject to the
conditions set forth herein. This suspension shall be retroactive to November 4,
2020, the date of respondent’ s interim suspension. A ll 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.