From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Boellert

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Apr 17, 2006
926 So. 2d 492 (La. 2006)

Opinion

No. 2006-B-0482.

April 17, 2006.

In re Boellert, Karl E.; Disciplinary Counsel; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Joint Petition for Consent Discipline Pursuant to Rule XIX, § 20.


ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS


The Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with a client. Prior to the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline in which respondent admitted that his conduct violated Rules 1.7 (conflicts of interest) and 2.1 (a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment in representing a client) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Karl E. Boellert, Louisiana Bar Roll number 3212, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. This suspension shall be deferred in its entirety, subject to respondent's successful completion of a two-year period of probation governed by the terms and conditions set forth in the Petition for Consent Discipline. 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 suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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.

JOHNSON, J., would reject.


Summaries of

In re Boellert

Supreme Court of Louisiana
Apr 17, 2006
926 So. 2d 492 (La. 2006)
Case details for

In re Boellert

Case Details

Full title:In re Karl E. BOELLERT

Court:Supreme Court of Louisiana

Date published: Apr 17, 2006

Citations

926 So. 2d 492 (La. 2006)