Cited by

1/Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the board determined that respondent’s misconduct in this matter warrants disbarment; however, the board noted that the misconduct occurred in the same time frame as the misconduct at issue in Turnage I. 2 Accordingly, citing Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, the board recommended that respondent be adjudged guilty of additional violations warranting disbarment, to be considered in the event he makes a future application for readmission.

Relying on Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, the committee determined that since some of the misconduct at issue in this matter occurred during the same time period as the misconduct forming the basis for respondent’s previous disbarments, the discipline imposed should be determined as if all the proceedings were before the court simultaneously.

In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, we explained that, when a second disciplinary proceeding against an attorney involves misconduct which occurred during the same |12time period as the first proceeding, the overall discipline to be imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before the court simultaneously.

Relying on Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, the board determined that if the underlying misconduct in this matter had been considered together with the misconduct at issue in Boudreau I, the same sanction (a three-year suspension) would have been imposed.

In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, we observed that when the underlying conduct occurs within the same period as the misconduct forming the basis of a previous disbarment, the discipline imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before the court simultaneously.

*1190 The board pointed out that the misconduct in the instant case occurred within the same time frame as the 1999 misconduct at issue in Bankston I. Citing In re: Vaughan, 01-1948 (La.10/26/01), , and Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, the board concluded that because the misconduct occurred during the same time as the misconduct in Bankston I, the discipline to be imposed should be determined as if both cases had been charged together.

At first glance, it might appear the approach of Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, is appropriate, as some of the instant misconduct occurred prior to this court's 1999 opinion in Lewis I. However, a close examination of Lewis I reveals the misconduct in that case occurred in the 1993-1994 time period, far removed from the misconduct in the instant case, which occurred in 1998-2000.

The misconduct at issue in this proceeding occurred in 1998, in the same time frame as the misconduct for which respondent was suspended in Holley I. In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, we observed that when a second attorney disciplinary proceeding involves conduct which occurred |fiduring 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 also Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain

As the hearing committee and disciplinary board correctly noted, the substantive misconduct at issue in this case occurred in the same time frame as the misconduct forming the basis of respondent’s disbarment in Henderson I. In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, we observed that when the underlying conduct occurs within the same period as the misconduct forming the basis of a previous disbarment, the discipline imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before the court simult

In re: Vaughan, 01-1948 (La.10/26/01), ; Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain

In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, we observed that when the underlying conduct occurs within the same period as the misconduct forming the basis for a previous disbarment, the discipline imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before the court simultaneously.

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

While respondent’s actions in the Rachal matter and criminal conviction matter would warrant disbarment, the board correctly found that the underlying facts in *733 these matters arose during the same general time frame as respondent’s misconduct in Callahan I. In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, we declined to impose an additional disbarment on a previously-disbarred attorney based on conduct which occurred during the same time frame as the earlier disbarment.

See, e.g., 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.”).

In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, we observed that when the underlying conduct occurs within the same period as the misconduct forming the basis for a previous disbarment, the discipline imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before the court ^^simultaneously.

However, observing that,the misconduct at issue here occurred in January 1998, during the same time frame as the misconduct for which respondent was disbarred in Cohen II, 5 the board adopted the approach of Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, and recommended that respondent be adjudged guilty of additional violations which warrant disbarment, and that these violations be added to his record for consideration in the event he applies for readmission.

In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, we observed that when a second |flattorney 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.

Notably, however, this misconduct occurred during the same time period as the misconduct at issue in Dunn I. Under such facts, Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, requires that the discipline imposed in this case be determined as if both proceedings had been before the court simultaneously.

In reviewing the misconduct, we find that it occurred within the same general time frame as the misconduct at issue in Richard I. In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, 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.

In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, we observed that when the underlying conduct occurs within the same period as the misconduct forming the basis for a previous disbarment, the discipline imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before the court simultaneously.

6 In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, we observed that when the underlying conduct occurs within the same period as the misconduct forming the basis for a previous disbarment, the | ^discipline imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before the court simultaneously.

2 In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, 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.

Rather, the proper approach in dealing with such a situation is illustrated in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, in which we explained that 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.

|7The ODC concedes that much of the conduct forming the basis of the instant disciplinary proceeding occurred within the same time frame as the 1995 misconduct at issue in Hollis I. 3 The proper approach in dealing with such a situation is illustrated in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, in which we explained that 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 imp

Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, , 471 n. 2 (La.1991).

[5] we departed from Krasnoff and declined to extend the delay for applying for readmission in a case involving an attorney who had been disciplined on two prior occasions, resulting in a disbarment and an extension of the minimum period for applying for readmission.