Cited by

d found the sole mitigating factor is remoteness of prior offenses, with the exception of the 2018 admonition.3 Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the board indicated that respondent’s misconduct in the instant case occurred in the same time frame as the misconduct in Klein III; therefore, it is appropriate to apply the analysis of Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, (La.

The majority indicated that “knowingly and illegally practicing law without a valid license should warrant further sanctions where a specific misconduct is found ‘yet again.’” 3 In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, (La.

Because there is no overlap in these time periods, the sanction analysis set forth in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, (1991), is not applicable.

Therefore, respondent did 3 In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, (La.

Therefore, we applied the approach we took in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. C hatelain, (La.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the committee concluded that the application of the approach set forth in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, (La.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the board determined respondent’s instant misconduct should be considered together with his misconduct that was the subject of Bates I using the analysis established in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, (1991).

As a result, the board turned to a discussion of Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain , (La.

In Louisiana State Bar Ass’ n v. Chatelain, (La.

Because the instant misconduct occurred within the time period of the misconduct at issue in Wilson I and Wilson II, the committee concluded that all three matters must be considered together pursuant to Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, (La.

In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, (La.

Noting that the instant misconduct occurred between 2017 and 2018, while the prior misconduct occurred between 2015 and 2018, the committee determined the misconduct here and in Fazande III occurred during the same time period and must be considered together pursuant to Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, (La.

Applying the analysis set f orth in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain , (La.

isconduct at issue in Burkart I. Theref ore, we agree with the hearing committee and the disciplinary board that we should address the current misconduct in conjunction with the misconduct in Burkart I. The concept of simultaneously considering new charges based on conduct occurring at the same time as earlier misconduct originated in our opinion in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain , (La.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the committee determined that respondent's substantive misconduct, which occurred during the same time period as the misconduct subject of Wilson I , is subject to the approach of Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Chatelain , (La.

Presumably, the committee is applying the analysis of Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Chatelain , (La.

In Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Chatelain , (La.

Accordingly, the board determined that the approach of Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Chatelain , (La.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the board considered the case of Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, *866 (La.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the board considered the case of Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, (La.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the board noted that because the misconduct in the present matter occurred in 2012 and 2013, well after the misconduct for which respondent was disbarred in Jones-Joseph I, the approach established by this court in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, is inapplicable in this case.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the board considered the case of Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, wherein we observed that when a second attorney disciplinary proceeding involves conduct that occurred during the same time period as the first proceeding, the overall discipline to be imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before the court simultaneously.

In recommending disbarment, both the hearing committee and the disciplinary board appear to have overlooked the fact *124 that respondent’s misconduct in this matter occurred in the same time frame as the misconduct at issue in Fradella I. Under these circumstances, the sanction should have been analyzed under Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the board considered the case of Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, wherein the court observed that when a second attorney disciplinary proceeding involves conduct that occurred during the same time period as the first proceeding, the overall discipline to be imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before the court simultaneously.

Accordingly, the board determined that the approach of Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, is applicable to the substantive misconduct in this case.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the committee initially considered whether the approach established by this court in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, is applicable in this case.

See Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, (when a second disciplinary proceeding against an attorney involves misconduct which occurred during the same time period as the first proceeding, the overall discipline to be imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before the court simultaneously).

5 IsThe ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s report, noting the recommended sanction appears to be based upon a misinterpretation of Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain

Accordingly, the board determined that the approach of Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, is applicable to the substantive misconduct in this case.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the board determined that the approach of Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, should be applied in this case.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the board first considered whether the approach established by this court in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, is applicable in this matter.

we observed that when a second attorney disciplinary proceeding involves conduct which occurred during the same time period as the first proceeding, the overall discipline to be imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before the court simultaneously.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the committee determined that Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, is applicable to the facts of this matter.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the board indicated the misconduct in the DeGruy matter occurred during the same time period as the misconduct in Gerdes I. Pursuant to the court’s holding in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, 4 the board determined it must treat the De-Gray matter as if it was before the court simultaneously with the misconduct in Gerdes I. Respondent received a one-year suspension, with six months deferred, in Gerdes I. Standing alone, respondent’s miscond

Accordingly, the board determined that the approach of Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, is applicable to the substantive misconduct in this case.

With regard to the sanction, both parties maintained that the misconduct in the present matter occurred during the same time period as respondent’s misconduct subject of Armond I. Accordingly, the parties contended that the approach 'of Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, is applicable.

However, the committee noted that some of the misconduct in the instant matter occurred during the same time period as respondent’s misconduct in Hyman I while some of it occurred after the misconduct in Hyman I. Under these circumstances, the committee declined to apply 1 «the approach established in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, wherein the court held that “[w]hen a second disciplinary proceeding against an attorney involves misconduct which occurred during the same time period as th

Finding that the instant misconduct occurred during the same time frame as the misconduct in Thornton I, wherein this court held that "[w]hen a second disciplinary proceeding against an attorney involves misconduct which occurred during the same time period as the first proceeding, the overall discipline to be imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before the court simultaneously."

See Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain

We note, however, that this misconduct occurred during the same general time frame as the misconduct forming the basis of respondent’s disbarment in Banks I. In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, we observed that it is generally inappropriate to disbar a previously disbarred attorney when the misconduct at issue occurred before or concurrently with the violations that resulted | sin the initial disbarment.

Accordingly, the board recommended that respondent be adjudged guilty of additional violations warranting disbarment, pursuant to Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, for his misconduct in 00-DB-143 and 01-DB-007, but that he be disbarred a second time for his misconduct in 02-DB-078 and 04-DB-021.

In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, we observed that “[w]hen a second disciplinary proceeding against an attorney involves misconduct which occurred during the same time period as the first |7proceeding, the overall discipline to be imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before the court simultaneously.” Although Chatelain m

See Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain

However, the board observed that the bulk of the misconduct at issue occurred during the same time period as respondent’s misconduct subject of Szuba I. Therefore, relying on Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, the board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years, to run concurrently with the suspension imposed in Szuba I. Furthermore, the board recommended that respondent be ordered to provide an accounting and restitution of/ unearned fees to Mr. Blum

Following the reasoning of this court in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, the board observed that the instant misconduct occurred within the same time frame as the misconduct at issue in Woods I and therefore, the sanction should be determined based on the sanction which would have been imposed if both cases had been before the court simultaneously.

Citing Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, the committee recommended that the current violations be added to respondent’s disciplinary file for consideration in the event he applies for readmission.

See Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain

We note, however, that this misconduct occurred during the same general time frame as the misconduct forming the basis of respondent’s disbarment in Col-linsworth I. In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, we observed that it is generally inappropriate to disbar a previously disbarred attorney when the misconduct at issue occurred before or concurrently with the violations that resulted in the initial disbarment.