Opinion
No. 2023-B-00041
02-24-2023
IN RE: Michael Blake HALE
Joint petition for consent discipline accepted. See per curiam.
Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Genovese, J., dissents and would disallow retroactivity.
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
PER CURIAM
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent neglected two legal matters, failed to communicate with two clients, engaged in a conflict of interest, failed to return a client's file, engaged in criminal conduct, and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Following the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which the parties stipulated that respondent has violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 1.16(d), 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Michael Blake Hale, Louisiana Bar Roll number 30538, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day, retroactive to April 21, 2022, the date of his interim suspension.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that prior to seeking reinstatement, respondent shall comply with the conditions set forth in the petition for consent discipline.
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.
Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons:
I dissent from the majority per curiam to the extent the majority suspends respondent retroactively to the date of his interim suspension. In lieu of this discipline, I would suspend respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day, without the benefit of retroactivity.