In Re: William Francis Henderson

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: WILLIAM FRANCIS HENDERSON
No. 2022-OB-00216
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Readmission);
_ _ _ _ _ _
March 15, 2022
Readmission granted with conditions. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., dissents and would deny conditional readmission.
Crichton, J., dissents and would deny conditional readmission.
JLW
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
03/15/2022 "See News Release 011 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
22-OB-0216
I
N RE: WILLIAM FRANCIS HENDERSON
ON AP
PLICATION FOR READMISSION
P
ER CURIAM
Th
is proceeding arises out of an application for readmission to the practice of
law filed by petitioner, William Francis Henderson, a disbarred attorney.
UNDE
RLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner pleaded guilty in the 9 th Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Rapides to one felony count of unauthorized use of a movable valued in excess of
$1,000, a violation of La. R.S. 14:68(A), stemming from his conversion of client
funds. Petitioner and the Office of D isciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) then filed with
this court a joint petition for consent discipline, proposing that petitioner be
disbarred. We accepted the petition and disbarred petitioner on August 30, 2013,
retroactive to March 31, 2010, the date he was placed on interim suspension. In re:
Henderson, 13-1301 (La. 8/30/13), 123 So. 3d 160.
In November 2020, petitioner filed an application for r eadmission with the
disciplinary board, alleging he has complied with the readmission criteria set forth
in Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(E). The ODC took no position regarding the
application for readmission. Accordingly, the matter was referred for a formal
hearing before a hearing committee, which was conducted on November 15, 2021.
1
1 Previously, the matter had been set for hearing on March 21, 2021; however, a hearing was not
actually conducted on that date because the public member of the hearing committee was not
present. Rather, the hearing committee made a recommendation based solely on a written record
consisting of documentary evidence submitted by the parties. On September 27, 2021, we
03/15/2022

2

Following the hearing, the committee recommended that petitioner be
readmitted to the practice of law. The committee also recommended that petitioner
be appointed a practice monitor for one year to ensure that he engages in sound
practices when handling client funds. Finally, t he committee recommended
petitioner be as sessed with the costs a nd expenses of this proceeding. 2 Neither
petitioner nor the ODC objected to the committee’s recommendation.

DISCUSSION
After considering the record in its entirety, we find petitioner has met his
burden of proving that he should be readmitted to the practice of law. Nevertheless,
further precautions are warranted to insure that the public will be protected upon
petitioner’s return to practice. See Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(J).
Accordingly, we will order that petitioner be co nditionally readmitted to the
practice of law, subject to a one-year period of supervised probation.

DECREE
Upon review of the recommendation of the hearing committee, and
considering the record, it is ordered that William Francis Henderson, Louisiana Bar
Roll number 21291, be immediately readmitted to the practice of law in Louisiana,
subject to a one-year period of supervised probation. The probationary period shall
commence from the date petitioner, the ODC, and the probation mo nitor execute a
formal probation plan. Should petitioner fail to comply with the conditions of
probation, or should he commit any misconduct during the period of probation, his

remanded the matter to the hearing committee with instructions to conduct a formal hearing as
required by Supreme Court Rule XIX, §§ 24(F) and (G).
2 The committee recommended that petitioner not be assessed with the costs of the March 21, 2021
hearing that could not be held through no fault of his own.

3

conditional right to practice may be terminated immediately, or he may be subjected
to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, as
appropriate. All costs of these proceedings a re assessed against petitioner, less the
costs and expenses associated with the March 21, 2021 hearing.