In Re: James Arthur Graham, Jr.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
February 06, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: JAMES ARTHUR GRAHAM, JR.
No. 2023-B-01551
_ _
_ _ _ _
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;
_ _ _ _ _ _
February 06, 2024
Reciprocal discipline imposed. See per curiam.
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
02/06/2024 "See News Release 007 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
23-B-1551
I
N RE: JAMES ARTHUR GRAHAM, JR.
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
P
ursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
(“ODC”) has filed a petition seeking the imposition of reciprocal discipline against
respondent, James Arthur Graham, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in
Louisiana, based upon discipline imposed by the Board of Professional
Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
U
NDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Respondent purchased a law firm in Tennessee and filed an application for
comity admission. Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 7, § 10.97, he was
then authorized to practice law “pending admission” in Tennessee.
Respondent later withdrew his application for comity admission to practice in
Tennessee. Thereafter, respondent was notified that his ability to practice “pending
admission” was revoked.
For approximately sixty days, respondent stated on his website that he was
licensed in Tennessee, although his “practice pending admission” had been revoked.
This false statement resulted in potential harm to the public.
On October 5, 2023, the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme
Court of Tennessee censured respondent for violating Rule 7.1 (communication
concerning a lawyer’s services) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
02/06/24

2

After receiving notice of the Tennessee order of discipline, the ODC filed a
motion to initiate reciprocal discipline proceedings in Louisiana, pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21. A copy of the decision issued by the Board of
Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee was attached to the
motion. On November 28, 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 wh ich 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 infirmi ty 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 or der as it deems
appropriate. The burden is on the party seeking different
discipline in this jurisdiction to demonstrate that the
imposition of the same discipline is not appropriate.

3

In the instant case, respondent has made no showing of infirmities in the
Tennessee proceeding, nor do we discern any from our review of the record.
Furthermore, we feel there is no reason to deviate from the sanction imposed in
Tennessee 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”).
Here, there is little doubt that respondent’s conduct would warrant discipline
in Louisiana. Under these circumstances, we agree that reciprocal discipline is
warranted pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21. Because our rules do not
provide for a public censure in bar disciplinary cases, we will impose a public
reprimand, which is the closest equivalent available under our rules.

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, James Arthur Graham, Jr. , Louisiana Bar Roll number 34835, be
publicly reprimanded.