Opinion
No. 2020-OB-00457
05-26-2020
IN RE: Felix Anthony DEJEAN, IV
Weimer, J., recused.
--------
Reinstatement granted. See per curiam.
This proceeding arises out of an application for reinstatement to the practice of law filed by petitioner, Felix Anthony DeJean, IV, a suspended attorney.
UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 30, 2019, we suspended petitioner from the practice of law for one year and one day. In re: DeJean , 18-1333 (La. 1/30/19), 264 So. 3d 424. The suspension stemmed from petitioner's conviction of simple battery following an altercation with opposing counsel in the chambers of the presiding judge.
In October 2019, petitioner filed an application for reinstatement with the disciplinary board, alleging he has complied with the reinstatement criteria set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(E). The Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") took no position regarding the application for reinstatement. Accordingly, the matter was referred for a formal hearing before a hearing committee.
Following the hearing, the hearing committee recommended that petitioner be reinstated to the practice of law. Neither petitioner nor the ODC objected to the hearing committee's recommendation.
DISCUSSION
After considering the record in its entirety, we find there is clear and convincing evidence of petitioner's compliance with the reinstatement criteria. Accordingly, we will adopt the hearing committee's recommendation and reinstate petitioner to the practice of law.
DECREE
Upon review of the recommendation of the hearing committee, and considering the record, it is ordered that Felix Anthony DeJean, IV, Louisiana Bar Roll number 25028, be immediately reinstated to the practice of law in Louisiana. All costs of these proceedings are assessed against petitioner.
Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
Weimer, J., recused.
CRICHTON, J. additionally concurs and assigns reasons:
I agree with the majority's reinstatement of petitioner. The view of the majority, as expressed in the per curiam, is that petitioner has satisfied each of the requirements for reinstatement under Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(E). In such a case, reinstatement is mandatory. See Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(I) ("If the court finds that the lawyer has complied with each of the criteria of paragraph E ... the court shall reinstate or readmit the lawyer and may issue written reasons.") (emphasis added); but see In re Cortigene, 2013-2022 (La. 2/14/14), 144 So.3d 915 (recognizing this Court's plenary authority over attorney disciplinary matters).
The question of whether an attorney has established his qualification for reinstatement is fact-intensive and driven by the evidence presented. Here, petitioner testified on his own behalf, fully acknowledging his wrongdoing and recognizing the seriousness of his actions. He also submitted extensive evidence of counseling he had undergone and through numerous character witnesses presented compelling evidence of his good character and self-improvement. Notably, the Hearing Committee recommended reinstatement with no objection by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. For the foregoing reasons, I believe petitioner has presented ample evidence to demonstrate his fitness to be reinstated into the practice of law. See In re: Ungar , 2016-0394 (La. 5/20/16), 192 So.3d 112 (2016).