Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Keys, 567 So. 2d 588.

15 citing documents.

In Re: Samuel Robert Aucoin La. 2021
9/7/90), citing In re: Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S. Ct. 1222, 20 L. Ed. 2d 117 (1968), the court held that due process requires that an attorney be given notice of the misconduct for which the disciplinary authori ty seeks to sanction him.
In Re John D. CONRY 158 So. 3d 786 La. 2015
1222 , 20 L.Ed.2d 117 (1968); Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Keys
In re Ohle 149 So. 3d 1226 La. 2014
In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Keys, we discussed the due process requirements for formal charges in bar disciplinary matters: In a bar discipline proceeding due process requires that an attorney be given notice of the misconduct for which the disciplinary authority seeks to sanction him, as well as an opportunity to explain his conduct o
In re Ruth 90 So. 3d 1004 La. 2012
12/1/98), , and Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Keys, (La.
In re Fazande 23 So. 3d 247 La. 2009
See Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Keys, (holding that due process prohibits sanctioning an attorney for unrelated misconduct revealed by evidence in the disciplinary proceeding when the attorney has not been notified that the uncharged violations would be considered as disciplinary offenses or that he should be prepared to present a defense as to
In Re Raspanti 8 So. 3d 526 La. 2009
the hearing committee concluded fair and adequate notice of the nature of the misconduct had been given to Respondent, and therefore, the Rule 3.1 claim could be pursued by ODC.
In Re Mopsik 902 So. 2d 991 La. 2005
which holds that a lawyer is not required to guarantee proper conduct of a non-lawyer employee but only to make reasonable efforts to ensure the employee's conduct is compatible with the attorney's professional obligations, the board determined that respondent did make reasonable efforts to ensure that Ms.
In re Frank 876 So. 2d 57 La. 2004
In support, the board cited Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Keys, (due process prohibits sanctioning an attorney for unrelated misconduct revealed by evidence in the disciplinary proceeding when the attorney has not been notified that the uncharged violations would be considered as disciplinary offenses or that he should be prepared to present a defense as to that misconduc
In Re Wilkinson 805 So. 2d 142 La. 2002
(thirty day suspension imposed on an attorney, who failed to supervise secretary's use of $42,400 in client funds from a succession account for office operating expenses).
In re Nalick 777 So. 2d 1220 La. 2001
See In re: Leitz, 98-3014 (La.1/8/99); (sixty day suspension imposed on attorney for failure to supervise law partner or law firm’s trust account, which permitted partner’s conversion of third party funds); Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Keys, (thirty day suspension imposed on attorney who failed to supervise secretary who used $42,400 in client trust funds for office operating expenses).
In re Leitz 728 So. 2d 835 La. 1999
The board cited (three month suspension imposed on lawyer for failure to supervise), and Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Keys, (30 day suspension imposed on lawyer for failure to supervise).
In Re Quirk 705 So. 2d 172 La. 1997
In re Caver 632 So. 2d 1157 La. 1994
The Committee then turned for guidance to Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Keys, in which this court imposed a thirty-day suspension on an attorney who was negligent simply in supervising his secretary.
In re Harrington 608 So. 2d 631 La. 1992
Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Villa 570 So. 2d 1165 La. 1990