In Re: Meredith Wiggins Benoit

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 02, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: MEREDITH WIGGINS BENOIT
No. 2023-B-00342
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: Office of Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and
Recommendations (Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 02, 2023
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
Crichton, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns reasons.
JDH
JLW
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
05/02/2023 "See News Release 021 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2023
-B-0342
I
N RE: MEREDITH WIGGINS BENOIT
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Coun sel (“ODC”) against respondent, Meredith Wiggins Benoit, an
attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently ineligible to practice.1
FO
RMAL CHARGES
On July 18, 2021, respondent entered the Target store in Metairie with
reusable shopping bags. She was initially observed by Target security personnel
opening a container of pet f lea medication and emptying the contents into her
shopping bag, then returning the empty container to the shelf . Focused camera
surveillance was begun and video evidence captured r espondent placing various
items of merchandise into her shopping bags as she moved throughout the store.
Eventually she exited the store and went into the parking garage without paying for
any of the items she had placed in her bags.
Using video surveillance, the security team was able to identif y the items
respondent had taken, totaling $324.91; however, security was unable to capture the
license plate of respondent’s vehicle so as to make a positive identification at that
1 On October 20, 2020, respondent was declared ineligible to practice law for failure to pay her
bar dues and the disciplinary assessment. She is also ineligible to practice for failure to comply
with the continuing legal education requirements and for failure to file a trust account registration
statement.
05/02/23

2

time. Moreover, no attempt was made to apprehend respondent on this occasion due
to COVID policy restrictions then in effect.
On July 28, 2021, respondent returned to Target, again carrying reusable
shopping bags. A security officer positively identified r espondent as the same
female who had engaged in shoplifting at the store ten days earlier, and focused
camera s urveillance was again commenced. Respondent was observed as she
selected a pair of shoes from a shelf, removed them from the box, placed them on
her feet and confirmed the fit, then placed her old shoes into the shoe box and
returned the box to the store shelf.
Security officers contacted the Jefferson Par ish Sheriff ’s Office about a
shoplifting incident in progress. Officers arrived on the scene and gathered with
security officers in the surveillance area of the stor e as they collectively watched
respondent continue to place items in her shopping bags for nearly four hours. The
officers apprehended respondent and found items totaling $1,763.00. She had no
cash, check book, cre dit cards, or debit cards in her possession that would have
evidenced a means of payment. Respondent was arrested for felony theft (over
$1,000), in violation of La. R.S. 14:67(B)(3). She was also charged with
misdemeanor theft in connection with the previous shoplifting incident.2
In February 2022, respondent self -reported her arrest to the ODC. In
connection with its investigation, the ODC discovered that in 2014, respondent was
arrested in Mississippi and charged w ith speeding and driving with a suspended
driver’s license. She was allowed to enter a plea and pay a fine of $185. She failed
to pay the fine and an a ttachment was issued and remained outstanding at the time
of the O DC’s investigation in 2022. Moreover, respondent was also arrested in
Jefferson Parish in 2017 for speeding, expired insurance, and driving while under

2 The Jefferson Parish District Attorney accepted charges and offered respondent a pre- trial
diversion opportunity. Respondent was subsequently discharged from the program for failure to
comply with the required terms and conditions.

3

suspension. There were three attachments outstanding when she was arrested on the
theft charges stemming from her Target shoplifting activities.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In September 2022, 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),
8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act reflecting adversely on the lawyer’s honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer), 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 hearing committee’s consideration.

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the ODC’s d eemed admitted su bmission, the hearing
committee determined that the record supports the deemed admitted facts. Based on
these facts, the committee determined respondent violated the Rules of Professional
Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.
The committee then determined respondent intentionally violated duties owed
to the public and the legal profession, causing actual harm. After considering the
ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , the committee determined the
baseline sanction is suspension.

4

The committee found the following aggravating factors present: a dishonest
or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge
the wrongful nature of the conduct, substantial experience in the practice of law
(admitted 2000), and indifference to making restitution. The committee found the
following mitigating factors present: absence of a prior disciplinary record and “self-
report of the initial arrest.”
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the committee determined that
this matter is very similar to In re: LaMartina, 17 -0430 (La. 12/6/17), 235 So. 3d
1061. In LaMartina, the respondent pleaded guilty to two shoplifting charges and
failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. She had a prior disciplinary
record, among other aggravating factors, and no mitigating factors were found to be
present. The court suspended Ms. LaMartina for three years for her misconduct.
Based on LaMartina, the committee recommended respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for three years. The committee also recommended that
respondent be assessed with the costs and expenses of this proceeding.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the committee’s report.
Therefore, pursuant to Supreme Cour t 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 those charges are deemed admitted. Supr eme Court Rule XIX, §

5

11(E)(3). Thus, the ODC bears no additional burden to prove the factual allegations
contained in the formal charges after those cha rges 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 admitte d 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
was arrested for shoplifting and has warrants outstanding for failure to appear and/or
pay associated fines or costs in connection with moving violations. Based upon
these facts, respondent has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.
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 disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain
high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession,
and deter future misconduct. Louisiana S tate 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).
Respondent intentionally violated duties owed to the public and the legal
profession. Her conduct caused actual harm to Target and to the legal profession.
The applicable baseline sanction is disbarment.
The record supports the following aggravating factors: a dishonest or selfish
motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, substantial experience in the

6

practice of law, and illegal conduct. The sole mitigating factor present is the absence
of a prior disciplinary record.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the instant matter presents an
almost identical factual scenario as the LaMartina case cited by the hearing
committee. In light of LaMartina , and considering the aggravating and mitigat ing
factors present, we find the committee’s recommended sanction is appropriate.
Accordingly, we will adopt the hearing committee’s recommendation and
impose a suspension from the practice of law for three years.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee,
and considering the record, it is ordered that Meredith Wiggins Benoit, Louisiana
Bar Roll number 26798, be and she hereby is suspended from the practice of law for
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.