Opinion
No. 2001-OB-1142
May 2, 2001. Order on Denial of Rehearing May 16, 2001. Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Calogero May 16, 2001. Order on Reconsideration June 20, 2001.
IN RE: Disciplinary Counsel; — Other; Applying for Motion for Declaration of Ineligibility to Practice Law for Failure to Pay Child Support Pursuant to La. Sup.Ct. Rule 19 Sec. 19.1
Application granted. See order.
PCC
PFC
CDK
BJJ
JPV
CDT
JTK
ORDER
Considering the Motion for Declaration of Ineligibility to Practice Law for Failing to Pay Child Support filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,
IT IS ORDERED that Joseph W. Thomas be and he hereby is declared immediately ineligible to practice law in the State of Louisiana pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19.1, due to his failure to pay court-ordered child support. Said ineligibility shall remain in effect pending further orders of this court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel institute formal charges, as appropriate, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11.
ORDER
Treating respondent's "Petition to Vacate Order Declaring Joseph W. Thomas Ineligible to Practice Law and Ordering Formal Charges Filed" as an application for reconsideration of this court's May 2, 2001 order declaring him ineligible to practice law for failure to pay child support,
IT IS ORDERED that reconsideration of this court's May 2, 2001 order be denied. Should respondent seek to be reinstated, he may follow the procedure set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19.1.
CALOGERO, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.
JOHNSON, J., dissents from denial of reconsideration. for the reasons assigned by C.J., CALOGERO.
ORDER
Considering respondent's "Motion for Reconsideration" of this court's May 2, 2001 order declaring him ineligible to practice law for failure to pay child support,
IT IS ORDERED that reconsideration of this court's May 2, 2001 order be denied. The judgment is final.
JOHNSON, J., would grant the motion for reconsideration. An annulled judgment cannot serve as the basis for this court's order declaring respondent ineligible to practice law.
CALOGERO, C.J., would grant reconsideration.
I dissent from the denial of rehearing, and would vacate and set aside this court's May 2, 2001 order declaring Respondent ineligible to practice law and would remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings that in fact would conform fully with La. Supreme Court Rule XIX, Sect. 19.1. In my opinion, the State's Rule for Contempt and to Revoke Licenses did not inform the Respondent that his law license could be revoked and, therefore, did not comply with that specific requirement of Rule XIX, Sect. 19.1. Furthermore, not only did the State's Rule for Contempt and to Revoke Licenses not inform Respondent that he could or would lose his license to practice law, but the judgment of the civil district court itself also did not advise Respondent that this court could or would declare him ineligible to practice law for failure to comply with any orders of child support. The judgment specifically excepts Respondent's law license from suspension in that part of the judgment in which it suspended all other licenses that might permit Respondent to engage in a profession or business.
The judgment ordered and decreed that "any license, certification, registration, permit or other similar document which otherwise grants to the defendant the authority to engage in a profession, except his law license, . . . [be] suspended effective immediately." (Emphasis supplied.) Of course, the district court does not have the authority to suspend a lawyer's license. But were the district court to follow precisely Rule XIX, Sect. 19.1, the judgment finding Respondent in non-compliance with the district court's order(s) of child support will, simply upon transmission of the judgment to the Supreme Court, result in this court suspending his law license.