Opinion
No. 2023-B-00545
05-31-2023
IN RE: Corey J. ORGERON
Joint petition for consent discipline accepted. See per curiam.
Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Griffin, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
PER CURIAM
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent engaged in a physical altercation with a client, resulting in respondent's conviction of simple battery. Following the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. Having reviewed the petition,
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Corey J. Orgeron, Louisiana Bar Roll number 20316, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. All but thirty days of this suspension shall be deferred, followed by respondent's successful completion of a two-year period of probation governed by the conditions set forth in the Petition for Consent Discipline. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent and the ODC execute a formal probation plan. 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 portion of the 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.
CRICHTON, J., would reject the petition for consent discipline and assigns reasons:
As I have previously noted, the Louisiana Constitution vests this Court with original jurisdiction in all "disciplinary proceedings against a member of the bar." La. Const. art. V, § 5 (B). Notwithstanding the fact that petitioner and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel have submitted this matter as a joint petition, I believe – as our Constitution provides – that the seven justices determine the appropriate result under that exclusive grant of jurisdiction. See, e.g. , In re Whiddon , 2020-0428 (La. 5/14/20), 296 So. 3d 604, 605 (Crichton, J., would reject the petition for consent discipline as "too harsh"); In re Hessler , 2022-00791 (La. 6/22/22), 339 So. 3d 622, 623 (Crichton, J., dissents from consent discipline petition as "unduly harsh"); In re: Wells , 20-0063 (La. 7/2/20), 297 So. 3d 741, 742 (same); In re: Hardee , 18-1555 (La. 11/14/18), 259 So. 3d 329 (same).
Violations of Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(b) of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct are serious. However, the underlying facts in this case are unique and, in my view, the proposed sanction, including 30 days actual suspension from the practice of law, is disproportionate to the facts. Under the circumstances presented here, I would reject the Joint Petition for Consent Discipline as too severe.