In Re: George Allen Roth Walsh

Supreme Court of Louisiana
March 05, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: GEORGE ALLEN ROTH WALSH
No. 2024-B-00026
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Office of Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and
Recommendations (Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
March 05, 2024
Permanent disbarment imposed. See per curiam.
Crain, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
JBM
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
PDG
03/05/2024 "See News Release 010 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2
024-B-0026
I
N RE: GEORGE ALLEN ROTH WALSH
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, George Allen Roth Walsh, a
disbarred attorney.
PR
IOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY
Before we address the current charges, we find it helpful to review
respondent’s prior disciplinary history. Respondent was admitted to the practice of
law in Louisiana in 2005.
In 2018, we considered a petition for consent discipline in which respondent
acknowledged that he had practiced law while he was ineligible to do so. For his
misconduct, we suspended respondent from the practice of law for six months, with
all but thirty days deferred, followed by one year of probation with conditions. In
re: Walsh, 18-1232 (La. 12/3/18), 257 So. 3d 654 (“Walsh I”).
Respondent had not yet sought reinstatement from his suspension in Walsh I
when he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, failed to advise his client of
his suspension, and fraudulently filed pleadings under his father’s name and bar roll
number to conceal his unauthorized practice of law. For this misconduct, we
disbarred respondent. In re: Walsh, 21-0280 (La. 6/29/21), 319 So. 3d 281 (“Walsh
II”).
03/05/24

2
In September 2021, the ODC filed additional formal charges against
respondent after he pleaded guilty to first offense DWI and then failed to cooperate
with the ODC’s investigation. After considering the matter, we found that the
substantive misconduct charged in the new set of formal charges occurred during the
same time frame as the conduct forming the basis of respondent’s disbarment in
Walsh II. Therefore, we applied the approach we took in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n
v. C
hatelain, 573 So. 2d 470 (La. 1991), and adjudged respondent guilty of
additional rule violations warranting disbarment. In re: Walsh, 22 -0695 (La.
6/28/22), 341 So. 3d 529 (“Walsh III”).
Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the misconduct at
issue in the instant proceeding.
F
ORMAL CHARGES
On May 31, 2022, Shane Evans, who is employed as the Chief of
Investigations for the East Baton Rouge Parish Coroner’s Office, received a
telephone call from respondent. Multiple times during the call and even though he
was disbarred at the time, responde nt informed Mr. Evans that he was an attorney
representing Maria Jarreau. The purpose of the representation was to assist Ms.
Jarreau in obtaining from the coroner’s office copies of the toxicology and other
reports relative to her daughter, who died in August 2021. Mr. Evans informed
respondent that the coroner’s office had already given Ms. Jarreau a copy of her
daughter’s death investigator’s report and toxicology report but that she could obtain
additional copies by coming to the coroner’s office. When the call ended, Mr. Evans
checked the Louisiana State Bar Association’s website and discovered that
respondent was disbarred.
Mr. Evans then immediately filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent,
who failed to participate in the ODC’s investigation of said complaint. During the

3
investigation, the ODC contacted Ms. Jarreau, who confirmed that she had hired
respondent to assist her with obtaining information about her daughter from the
coroner’s office. She also informed the ODC that, on April 23, 2022, she had paid
respondent a $500 fee for this service but had seen no results.
DIS
CIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In May 2023, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging that
his conduct set forth above violated the following provisions of the Rules of
Professional Conduct: Rules 1.16(a)(1) (a lawyer shall not represent a client or,
where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a
client if the representation will result in violation of the rules of professional conduct
or other law), 5.5(a) (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law), 8.1(b) (knowing
failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority),
8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), 8.4(a)
(violation of
the Rules of Professional Conduct), 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects
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 committee’s consideration.
He
aring Committee Report
After considering the ODC’s deemed admitted submission on sanctions, the
hearing committee made factual findings consistent with the deemed admitted

4

factual allegations set forth in the formal charges. Based on these facts, the
committee determined respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as
charged. Additionally, the committee determined respondent violated Rule 4.1
(truthfulness in sta tements to others) by falsely representing to Mr. Evans that he
was an attorney able to represent Ms. Jarreau.
The committee then determined respondent knowingly and intentionally
violated duties owed to his client, the public, and the legal profession. In acting as
he did, respondent caused actual and potential harm to his client, the public, the legal
system, an d the legal profession. After considering the ABA’s Standards for
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , the committee determined the baseline sanction is
disbarment.
The committee found no mitigating factors present but did find several
aggravating factors present. Specifically, the committee found the following in
aggravation: a prior disciplinary record, a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of
misconduct, bad fa ith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally
failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, and substantial
experience in the practice of law.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the committee emphasized
that respondent has engaged in the practice law despite being disbarred. The
committee also noted that respondent was disbarred in Walsh II for practicing law
while suspended. Given respondent’s continued unauthorized practice of law, the
committee determined that Guidelines 8 and 9 of the permanent disbarment
guidelines, as set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, Appendix D, apply here. The
committee further determined that responden t’s continued violation of Rule 5.5(a)
of the Rules of Professional Conduct “illustrates a complete disregard for his current
Louisiana Supreme Court sanction and a continuing pattern of serious ethical
misconduct.” In the committee’s opinion, respondent’ s current misconduct

5
“demonstrates a convincing lack of ethical and moral fitness to practice law,” and
the committee “does not believe there is a reasonable expectation of significant
rehabilitation in Respondent’s character in the future.” Accordingly, the committee
determined that respondent’s misconduct warrants permanent disbarment.
Based upon this reasoning, the committee recommended that respondent be
permanently disbarred. The committee also recommended that respondent be
ordered to refund the $500 fee to Ms. Jarreau.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the committee’s report
and recommendation. Therefore, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G), the
disciplinary board submitted the committee’s report directly to the court for review.
DIS
CUSSION
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.
The record in this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent
practiced law while disbarred and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its
investigation. Based on these facts, respondent has violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.
Even though the formal charges did not specifically allege a Rule 4.1
violation, which addresses truthfulness in statements to other s, the hearing

6

committee found such a violation because respondent falsely represented to Mr.
Evans that he was an attorney able to represent Ms. Jarreau. Pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule XIX, § 11(E), formal charges filed by the ODC must give “fair and
adequate notice of the nature of the alleged misconduct.” The formal charges gave
respondent fair and adequate notice that he was being accused of not being truthful
to Mr. Evans, and this factual allegation was deemed admitted upon respondent’s
failure to answer the charges. Therefore, a finding of a Rule 4.1 violation, in addition
to the Rule 8.4(c) violation, is appropriate.
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 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).
Respondent intentionally violated duties owed to his client, the public, and the
legal profession, causing actual and potential harm. We agree with the committee
that the baseline sanction is disbarment. We also agree with the committee that no
mitigating factors are present. Aggravating factors include a prior disciplinary
record, a dishonest or selfish motive, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary
proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the
disciplinary agency, vul nerability of the victim, and substantial experience in the
practice of law.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the committee has
recommended respondent be permanently disbarred, based upon Guidelines 8 and 9

7

of the permanent disbarment guidelines set for th in Supreme Court Rule XIX,
Appendix D. Guideline 8 indicates that permanent disbarment may be warranted
when an attorney engages in the unauthorized practice of law after resigning from
the Louisiana State Bar Association or during a period in which the attorney is
suspended from the practice of law or disbarred. Guideline 9 indicates permanent
disbarment may be warranted for instances of serious attorney misconduct or
conviction of a serious crime, when the misconduct or conviction is preceded by
suspension or disbarment for prior instances of serious attorney misconduct or
conviction of a serious crime. Based upon these guidelines, permanent disbarment
is appropriate for respondent’s misconduct.
However, on May 4, 2022, we adopted amendments to Supreme Court Rule
XIX related to permanent disbarment. As is set forth in our order, permanent
disbarment may be imposed only “upon an express finding of the presence of the
following factors: (1) the lawyer’s conduct is so egregious as to demonstrate a
convincing lack of ethical and moral fitness to practice law; and (2) there is no
reasonable expectation of significant rehabilitation in the lawyer’s character in the
future.” Regarding the first factor, the committee determined that respondent’s
disregard for our order of disbarment in Walsh II, which came about because of his
unauthorized practice of law during a period of suspension imposed in Walsh I ,
demonstrates a convincing lack of ethical and moral fitness to practice law. We
agree. Respondent has demonstrated multiple times that, given the chance, he will
continue to engage in the unauthorized practice of law in defiance of our orders.
Regarding the second factor, given respondent’s defiance of previous court orders
and his complete lack of cooperation in this proceeding, there is no reasonable
expectation of significant rehabilitation in his character in the future. Therefore,
permanent disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this matter.

8

Accordingly, we will adopt the committee’s recommendation and impose
permanent disbarment. We will also order respondent to refund the $500 fee to Ms.
Jarreau.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee,
and considering the record, it is ordered that George Allen Roth Walsh, Louisiana
Bar Roll number 29696, be and he hereby i s permanently disbarred. Pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(A), respondent shall be permanently prohibited from
being readmitted to the practice of law in this state. It is further order ed that
respondent shall refund the $500 fee paid by Maria Jarreau. 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.