In Re: Mary Holly Hammett

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 25, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: MARY HOLLY HAMMETT
No. 2023-B-00222
_
_ _ _ _ _
I
N RE: Office of Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Notice of Discipline in
Another Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule XIX, Section 21 and Motion to Initiate
Reciprocal Discipline Proceedings;
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 25, 2023
Reciprocal discipline imposed. See per curiam.
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
04/25/2023 "See News Release 020 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
23-B-0222
I
N RE: MARY HOLLY HAMMETT
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
T
his matter arises from a Petition to Initiate Reciprocal Discipline
Proceedings filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against
respondent, Mary Holly Hammett, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana
and Mississippi, based upon discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of
Mississippi.
UNDE
RLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 2021, respondent was hired to represent the mother of a minor in a child
custody proceeding in the Chancery Court of Lamar County, Mississippi. Attorney
Erik Shawn Lowery served as opposing counsel. Chancellor Deborah Gambrell,
who presided over the case, ruled against respondent’s client in the custody
proceeding. However, the ruling was reversed on appeal. The Supreme Court of
Mississippi granted certiorari to consider the case, but later withdrew the writ that
was granted.
Before a mandate was issued by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, respondent
advised her client to withdraw the child that was the subject of the custody
proceeding from the school where she was enrolled and enroll her in another school
district. After the mandate was issued, Mr. Lowery scheduled another hearing in the
matter with Judge Gambrell. Although she never formally withdrew from the case,
04/25/23

2

respondent refused to attend the hearing, and she undertook no action in furtherance
of the representation of her client following the issuance of the mandate.
During the course of the proceedings following the issuance of the mandate,
respondent sent emails making disparaging remarks about Chancellor Gambrell. 1
She also threatened to file, and ultimately did file, a complaint against Chancellor
Gambrell with the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance, all in an effort
to have Chancellor Gambrell recu se herself from the case. 2 Due to the statements
made concerning her by respondent, Chancellor Gambrell recused herself from the
case.
In 2022, Mr. Lowery filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent.
Respondent refused to cooperate with the Mississippi Bar in the investigation of the
complaint.
On December 28, 2022, the Supreme Court of Mississippi ordered that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Mississippi for one year for the
following violations of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 3.5(a)
(a lawyer shall not seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official
by means prohibited by law), 3.5(d) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended
to disrupt a tribunal), 8.1(b) (a lawyer shall not knowingly fail to respond to a lawful
demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority ), 8.2(a) (a
lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless
disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge,
adjudicating officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or
appointment to judicial or legal office), 8.4(a) (a lawyer shall not violate or attempt

1 Respondent referred to Chancellor Gambrell as “a mass murderer,” “Hurricane Deborah,” and
“Dishonorable Deborah Gambrell.”
2 The complaint was dismissed by the Commission.

3

to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct), and 8.4(d) (a lawyer shall not engage
in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).
After receiving notice of the Mississippi order of discipline, the ODC filed a
motion to initiate reciprocal discipline proceedings in Louisiana, pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21. A certified copy of the decision issued by the
Supreme Court of Mississippi was attached to the motion. On February 13, 2023,
this court rendered an order giving respondent thirty days to demonstrate why the
imposition of identical discipline in this state would be unwarranted. Respondent
failed to file any response in this court.

DISCUSSION
The standard for imposition of discipline on a reciprocal basis is set forth in
Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21(D). That rule provides:
Discipline to be Imposed. Upon the expiration of thirty
days from service of the notice pursuant to the provisions
of paragraph B, this court shall impose the identical
discipline … unless disciplinary counsel or the lawyer
demonstrates, or this court finds that it clearly appears
upon the face of the record from which the discipline is
predicated, that:

(1) The procedure was so lacking in notice or opportunity
to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due
process; or
(2) Based on the record created by the jurisdiction that
imposed the discipline, there was such infirmity of
proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the
clear conviction that the court could not, consistent
with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that
subject; or
(3) The imposition of the same discipline by the court
would result in grave injustice or be offensive to the
public policy of the jurisdiction; or
(4) The misconduct established warrants substantially
different discipline in this state; …

If this court determines that any of those elements exists,
this court shall enter such other order as it deems
appropriate. The burden is on the pa rty seeking different

4

discipline in this jurisdiction to demonstrate that the
imposition of the same discipline is not appropriate.

In the instant case, respondent has made no showing of infirmities in the
Mississippi proceeding, nor do we discern any fr om our review of the record.
Furthermore, we feel there is no reason to deviate from the sanction imposed in
Mississippi, as only under extraordinary circumstances should there be a
significant variance from the sanction imposed by the other jurisdiction. In re:
Aulston, 05-1546 (La. 1/13/06), 918 So. 2d 461. See also In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.
2d 964, 968-69 (D.C. 2003) (“there is merit in according deference, for its own sake,
to the actions of other jurisdictions with respect to the attorneys over whom we share
supervisory authority”).
Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to defer to the Mississipp i
judgment imposing discipline upon respondent. Accordingly, we will impose
reciprocal discipline in the form of a one-year suspension from the practice of law.

DECREE
Considering the Petition to Initiate Reciprocal Discipline Proceedings filed by
the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the record filed herein, it is ordered that
respondent, Mary Holly Hammett, Louisiana Bar Roll number 23769, be and she
hereby is suspended from the practice of law for one year.