In Re: Michael Thomas Joseph, Jr.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
January 14, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: MICHAEL THOMAS JOSEPH, JR.
No. 2024-B-01404
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Office of Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Rule to Revoke Probation;
_ _ _ _ _ _
January 14, 2025
Motion to revoke probation granted. Deferred portion of the suspension imposed.
See per curiam.
WJC
JLW
JDH
JTK
JBM
JMG
01/14/2025 "See News Release 001 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2
024-B-1404
I
N RE: MICHAEL THOMAS JOSEPH, JR.
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
The instant disciplinary proceeding arises from a motion to revoke probation
and make deferred suspension executory filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
(“ODC”) against respondent, Michael Thomas Joseph, Jr., for his alleged failure to
comply with the conditions of probation imposed in In re: Joseph, 22 -1279 (La.
10/4/22), 347 So. 3d 853 (“Joseph I”).
UN
DERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In J oseph I , respondent mishandled his client trust account, resulting in
multiple instances of commingling and conversion of client funds, failed to abide by
a disciplinary board order to attend the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Trust
Accounting School, failed to reduce contingency fee agreements to writing, and
failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. For this misconduct, the court
accepted a petition for consent discipline and suspended respondent from the
practice of law fo r eighteen months, with six months deferred, followed by a one-
year period of supervised probation with conditions. The court’s order also provided
that any failure of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, or any
misconduct during the probationary period, may be grounds for making the deferred
portion of the suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as
appropriate.
01/14/25

2

Respondent was reinstated to the practice of law effective October 5, 2023.
On October 27, 2023, respondent executed his probation agreement. As part of the
probation agreement, respondent was required to, in pertinent part: (1) promptly
respond to all requests by and make himself available for conferences with the ODC;
(2) register and maintain his trust account in accordance with Rule XIX ; (3) on a
quarterly basis, submit his client trust account to audits by an ODC -approved CPA
and provide the ODC with written audit reports and supporting documentation in a
form and manner approved by the ODC no later than 5:00 p.m. on the thirtieth day
of April, July, October, and January; and (4) acknowledge that any violation of the
Rules of Professional Conduct or the probation agreement may result in summary
revocation of his probation and making his deferred suspension executory and/or
result in additional discipline.
On October 10, 2024, the ODC filed the instant “Motion to Revoke Probation
Pursuant to Rule XIX, Appendix C, Rule 6C, and Impose Previously Deferred
Suspension” with the disciplinary board, submitting that sufficient evidence existed
that respondent has failed to comply with his probation conditions. Specifically, the
ODC alleged that respondent failed to produce a single trust account audit during
the term of his probation, failed to timely respond to a subpoena duces tecum, failed
to respond to the ODC’s requests for information, and failed to timely pay third-
party providers following settlement of his clients’ claims.

Hearing on Revocation of Probation
This matter proceeded to a hearing before an adjudicative panel of the
disciplinary board on November 7, 2024. The ODC introduced documentary
evidence and called Deputy Disciplinary Counsel Brianne Hemmans to testify at the
hearing. Ms. Hemmans, an attorney employed by the ODC, investigates and

3

prosecutes disciplinary complaints, drafts probation agreements, and monitors
attorney compliance with probation agreements.
Ms. Hemmans testified to respondent’s probation conditions, which include
quarterly audits. Ms. Hemmans sent a letter to respondent including the probation
agreement and instructions to properly complete, including due dates for the
determined audit perio ds. Respondent did not contact Ms. Hemmans with any
questions or concerns regarding his probation. Ms. Hemmans explained that after
respondent missed his first audit report deadline, she sent him correspondence
reminding him that the audit report was overdue and requesting that he provide her
with a status of the audit and an extra three days to complete. Respondent replied,
explaining that he only had one transaction in his client trust account which was a
mistaken online payment sent to him by his fath er. Nonetheless, he stated that he
would complete the report by the end of the week. Respondent did not submit the
report. Moreover, Ms. Hemmans testified that respondent failed to submit any of
the four required reports.
A subpoena duces tecum was issued for respondent to appear for a sworn
statement and produce a trust account audit report with supporting documentation
for the period of time from January through June in 2024. Respondent failed to
appear for the sworn sta tement. In a reply message to Ms. Hemmans, respondent
claimed he was held up in court and would attach “everything” to an email by the
next day. Respondent provided some documents; however, the documents did not
bring respondent into compliance with his probation conditions.
Ms. Hemmans continued to contact respondent throughout the audit period
notifying him of his due dates and failure to comply. She cautioned respondent that
his continued failure to respond to the ODC may result in disciplinary action being
taken. Respond ent failed to comply. Ms. Hemmans testified that during
respondent’s entire probationary period, he only sent in one trust account form to the

4

ODC, which Ms. Hemmans described as “woefully inadequate” and not completed
by a CPA as required.
In October 2024, respondent appeared for a sworn statement. Respondent
admitted that he failed to produce trust account audits in compliance with his
probation requirements, failed to timely respond to the ODC’s subpoena, failed to
timely respond to Ms. Hemmans’ requests for information, and failed to timely pay
third-party providers from his clients’ settlements. Ultimately, respondent stated
that there was no reason that his probation should not be revoked.
Brittany Richardson, the ODC forensic auditor, was accepted as an expert in
forensic auditing and testified that she was tasked with conducting an audit of
respondent’s trust account, but she was unable to do so because the ODC did not
have all of the necessary documentation.
Respondent also testified at the hearing and confirmed that he did not meet
any of the four due dates for his audit reports despite repeated correspondence from
the ODC requesting same. Respondent testified about an alleged April 2024
phishing incident which resulted in the loss of a significant amount of money. He
also explained that he has been experiencing significant financial problems since his
suspension from the practice of law, and he is unable to provide the type of audit
required by his probation agreement.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation
After considering the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the
record, and the applicable law, the disciplinary board found that the ODC presented
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that respondent failed to comply with the terms
and conditions of his probation. On November 18, 2024, the disciplinary board filed
its report with this court, recommending that the ODC’s motion be granted.

5

The board found that respondent violated his probation agreement by failing
to timely or sufficiently respond to the ODC’s requests for information. Respondent
failed to appear for a sworn statement despite being personally served with a
subpoena for same. Respondent also failed to perform required, quarterly
reconciliations of his client trust account and failed to submit written audit reports
as required by his probation agreement. The evidence revealed that respondent
never submitted an audit report or requested bank records during the entire year of
his probation.
Further, the board found that respondent’s conduct also violated several of the
Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent failed to perform reconciliations in
violation of Rule 1.15(f), and he failed to cooperate with the ODC and respond to its
requests, in violation of Rules 8.1(b) and 8.1(c).
The board’s recommendation also noted that the afternoon prior to the
scheduled hearing date, respondent filed a motion to continue, arguing he had
recently requested various documents and information from his bank regarding an
alleged phishing incident, and that he could not properly defend himself until such
information had been obtained. Respondent also raised this issue at the hearing.
After noting respondent’s failure to request any information about the alleged April
incident until shortly before the hearing, the board found that even “[a]ssuming the
alleged phishing incident to be true, any documentation which might be produced
by the bank regarding the incident which occurred on only one day would not affect
the Board’s determination of the probati on and rule violations discussed above.”
The board concluded its recommendation by stating, “it is particularly significant
that Respondent’s probation and rule violations include the same type of misconduct
involving his trust account and failure to cooperate with ODC for which he has been
previously sanctioned.”

6

Accordingly, the board recommended that respondent’s probation be revoked
and that the deferred portion of his eighteen-month suspension in Joseph I be made
executory. The board also recommended that he be assessed with all costs and
expenses of these proceedings.

DISCUSSION
A review of the record reveals that respondent has not complied with the
requirements set forth in his probation agreement. He has violated his probation
agreement and the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to perform required
reconciliations and audit reports. He has failed to respond to the ODC’s requests for
information, including a subpoena duces tecum that was personally served upon him.
Under the circumstances, we feel it is necessary to revoke respondent’s probation
and impose the previously-deferred suspension.
Accordingly, we will accept the disciplinary board’s recommendation and
grant the motion to revoke respondent’s probation, making the deferred portion of
the eighteenth-month suspension imposed in Joseph I immediately executory.

DECREE
For the reasons assigned, respondent’s probation is revoked and the deferred
portion of the suspension imposed in In re: Joseph, 22-1279 (La. 10/4/22), 347 So.
3d 853, is hereby made immediately executory. All costs and expenses in the matter
are assessed against respondent, Michael Thomas Joseph, Jr. , Louisiana Bar Roll
number 32880, 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.