Supreme Court of Louisiana
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #046
FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The Opinions handed down on the 22nd day of September, 2017, are as follows:
PER CURIAM:
2017-B-0524 IN RE: JANINNE LATRELL GILBERT
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing
committees and disciplinary board, and considering the record,
the brief filed by the ODC, and oral argument, it is ordered that
Janinne Latrell Gilbert, Louisiana Bar Roll number 30249, be and
she hereby is permanently disbarred. Her name shall be stricken
from the roll of attorneys and her license to practice law in the
State of Louisiana shall be revoked. Pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule XIX, § 24(A), it is further ordered that respondent be
permanently prohibited from being readmitted to the practice of
law in this state. It is further ordered that respondent pay
restitution of $2,000 plus legal interest to Denton Auzenne
and/or to the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Client Assistance
Fund, as appropriate. 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., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
09/22/17
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2017-B-0524
IN RE: JANINNE LATRELL GILBERT
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Janinne Latrell Gilbert, a
disbarred attorney.
PRIOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY
Before we address the current matter, we find it helpful to review respondent’s
prior disciplinary history. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in
Louisiana in 2006. In 2016, we disbarred respondent for neglecting legal matters,
failing to communicate with clients, failing to account for or refund unearned fees,
failing to properly withdraw from a representation, engaging in dishonest conduct,
and failing to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. In re: Gilbert, 16-0044
(La. 3/4/16), 185 So. 3d 734 (“Gilbert I”). The misconduct at issue in Gilbert I
occurred between 2010 and 2014.
Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the misconduct at
issue in the present proceeding.
UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The ODC filed two sets of formal charges against respondent under
disciplinary board docket numbers 15-DB-060 and 16-DB-044. Respondent was
served with both sets of formal charges via certified mail but failed to answer.
Accordingly, the factual allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and
proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, §
11(E)(3). No formal hearing was held, but the parties were given an opportunity to
file with the hearing committees written arguments and documentary evidence on
the issue of sanctions. Respondent filed nothing for the hearing committee’s
consideration in either matter. The formal charges were considered by separate
hearing committees, and then consolidated by order of the disciplinary board in
October 2016. The board filed in this court a single recommendation of discipline
encompassing both sets of formal charges.
15-DB-060
In February 2015, Denton Auzenne retained respondent to institute a filiation
proceeding, for which he paid respondent a $2,000 deposit. Mr. Auzenne advised
that time was of the essence, to which respondent indicated that a petition for filiation
would be filed within one week of her receipt of DNA results. After the DNA test
was completed on March 10, 2015, Mr. Auzenne attempted to contact respondent.
He was initially not successful in reaching her, but respondent finally replied, at
which time she indicated that the petition would be filed by March 16, 2015.
However, respondent did not file the petition and Mr. Auzenne immediately
had to hire another attorney to do the work. Mr. Auzenne contacted respondent to
terminate the representation and to request an accounting and a refund of any
unearned fees. In reply, respondent told Mr. Auzenne that she had filed the petition
but admitted that she failed to submit the necessary filing fee.
After hearing nothing more from respondent, Mr. Auzenne sent respondent a
written request for an accounting, the filiation paperwork, and a refund of unearned
fees. The certified mail was received on April 16, 2015, but respondent did not
2
respond and did not comply with these requests. Furthermore, there is no indication
that the unearned and/or disputed fees were ever deposited into respondent’s trust
account. According to the clerk’s office, there is no record of the petition being filed
by respondent on Mr. Auzenne’s behalf, either with or without the filing fee.
In July 2015, Mr. Auzenne filed a complaint against respondent with the
ODC. The ODC sent notice of the complaint to three of respondent’s known
addresses via certified mail. Although the return receipt card indicates delivery on
August 14, 2015, respondent failed to provide a response to the complaint.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4(a) (failure to communicate
with a client), 1.5(a) (charging an unreasonable fee), 1.5(f)(3) (an advance deposit
against future fees must be placed in the lawyer’s trust account), 1.5(f)(5) (failure to
refund an unearned fee), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the
representation), 8.1(b) (knowing failure to respond to a lawful demand for
information from a disciplinary authority), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC
in its investigation), 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), and
8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation).
Hearing Committee Report
After considering the ODC’s deemed admitted submission in 15-DB-060, the
hearing committee determined that the factual allegations of the formal charges were
deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence. The committee also
determined respondent knowingly and intentionally violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges. Based on the ABA’s
3
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined the baseline
sanction is disbarment.
Considering the deemed admitted facts of this case, the committee
recommended respondent be permanently disbarred. The committee also
recommended respondent be ordered to provide restitution in the amount of $2,000
to Mr. Auzenne and/or to the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Client Assistance
Fund. Finally, the committee recommended respondent be assessed with the costs
and expenses of this proceeding.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s
report and recommendation.
16-DB-044
On March 4, 2016, this court disbarred respondent in Gilbert I and mailed
notice of the judgment to respondent at her primary, secondary, and preferred
addresses. On March 28, 2016, respondent appeared before Gale J. LuQuette, a
hearing officer for the 15th Judicial District Court, Parish of Vermilion, for the
purpose of a conference in the matter of Angeles v. Angeles. Respondent appeared
as counsel for the plaintiff and the matter proceeded to a hearing.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 5.5(a) (engaging in the unauthorized
practice of law), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice).
Hearing Committee Report
After considering the ODC’s deemed admitted submission in 16-DB-044, the
committee determined respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as
alleged in the formal charges. Respondent knowingly appeared in court after
4
receiving notice of her disbarment. Notice had been mailed by the clerk of the
Supreme Court to respondent’s last known address, which is the same address to
which formal charges in this matter were mailed and received by respondent. It is
also the same address from which respondent mailed her response to the complaint.
Although respondent indicated in her response that she “had no idea” she could not
practice law when she appeared before the hearing officer, the committee rejected
respondent’s defense, stating that it was “not convinced that she had not been fully
placed on notice of her ineligibility to practice.”
Considering respondent’s misconduct in light of the permanent disbarment
guidelines and the prior jurisprudence of this court, the committee recommended
respondent be permanently disbarred. The committee also recommended respondent
be assessed with all costs and expenses of this proceeding.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s
report and recommendation.
Disciplinary Board Recommendation
15-DB-060 and 16-DB-044
After reviewing these consolidated matters, the disciplinary board determined
the factual allegations of the formal charges are deemed admitted and proven by
clear and convincing evidence. The board also determined that each committee
correctly applied the Rules of Professional Conduct, with two exceptions regarding
15-DB-060. The board declined to find a violation of Rule 1.5(a), reasoning that
there is no evidence or factual allegation that the fee charged by respondent and paid
by Mr. Auzenne was unreasonable. The board also declined to find a violation of
Rule 1.5(f)(3), reasoning that a lack of evidence to show that a fee was handled
appropriately does not necessarily mean the fee was handled inappropriately.
5
The board determined respondent knowingly, if not intentionally, violated
duties owed to her client, the legal system, and the legal profession. She caused
actual harm to her client by failing to return unearned fees. She created the potential
for serious harm to the underlying proceeding and to her client by engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law. She caused the ODC to expend additional resources
by failing to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation. Based on the ABA’s
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the board determined the applicable
baseline sanction is disbarment.
In aggravation, the board found a prior disciplinary record, multiple offenses,
bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to
comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, vulnerability of the
victims, and indifference to making restitution. The board found no mitigating
factors are present.
After further considering this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the board recommended a five-year extension of the time period in
which respondent can apply for readmission to the bar. The board also
recommended respondent be ordered to provide an accounting and a refund, as
necessary, to Mr. Auzenne. The board further recommended respondent be assessed
with the costs and expenses of this proceeding. Two board members dissented and
would recommend permanent disbarment.
The ODC filed an objection to the disciplinary board’s recommended sanction
as being unduly lenient. Accordingly, the case was docketed for oral argument
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G)(1)(b). Respondent did not appear for
oral argument, nor did she file a brief in this court.
6
DISCUSSION
Bar disciplinary matters fall within the original jurisdiction of this court. La.
Const. art. V, § 5(B). Consequently, we act as triers of fact and conduct an
independent review of the record to determine whether the alleged misconduct has
been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re: Banks, 09-1212 (La. 10/2/09),
18 So. 3d 57.
In cases in which the lawyer does not answer the formal charges, the factual
allegations of those charges are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule XIX, §
11(E)(3). Thus, the ODC bears no additional burden to prove the factual allegations
contained in the formal charges after those charges have been deemed admitted.
However, the language of § 11(E)(3) does not encompass legal conclusions that flow
from the factual allegations. If the legal conclusion the ODC seeks to prove (i.e., a
violation of a specific rule) is not readily apparent from the deemed admitted facts,
additional evidence may need to be submitted in order to prove the legal conclusions
that flow from the admitted factual allegations. In re: Donnan, 01-3058 (La.
1/10/03), 838 So. 2d 715.
The record in this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent
neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, failed to account for
or refund an unearned fee, failed to properly withdraw from a representation,
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, engaged in dishonest conduct, and
failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. Based on these facts,
respondent has violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.5(f)(5), 1.16(d), 5.5(a), 8.1(b), 8.1(c),
8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Having found evidence of professional misconduct, we now turn to a
determination of the appropriate sanction for respondent’s actions. In determining
a sanction, we are mindful that disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain
high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession,
7
and deter future misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So. 2d 1173
(La. 1987). The discipline to be imposed depends upon the facts of each case and
the seriousness of the offenses involved considered in light of any aggravating and
mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So. 2d 520
(La. 1984).
We find that respondent knowingly, if not intentionally, violated duties owed
to her client, the legal system, and the legal profession, causing actual and potential
harm. Based on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the baseline
sanction is disbarment. The aggravating factors found by the disciplinary board are
supported by the record. There are no mitigating factors present.
In their reports, the hearing committees concluded that respondent’s offenses
are so egregious that she should be permanently prohibited from applying for
readmission to the bar. The disciplinary board, on the other hand, felt that it was
sufficient to simply extend for five years the period which must elapse before
respondent may seek readmission.
We agree with the hearing committees that respondent’s conduct warrants
permanent disbarment. She failed to respect the authority of this court by practicing
law after being prohibited from doing so. She appeared in court and held herself out
as an attorney after she received notice of her disbarment. Such conduct falls under
Guideline 8 of the permanent disbarment guidelines.
Guideline 9 of the permanent disbarment guidelines is also applicable. That
guideline provides that permanent disbarment may be appropriate for instances of
serious attorney misconduct which are preceded by suspension or disbarment for
prior instances of serious attorney misconduct (defined as any misconduct which has
resulted in a suspension of more than one year). Respondent’s current misconduct,
taken as a whole, is serious attorney misconduct and was preceded by her disbarment
in Gilbert I.
8
Respondent’s long history of misconduct clearly demonstrates that she lacks
the fitness to engage in the practice of law in this state. In the face of this
indisputable evidence of a fundamental lack of moral character and fitness, we can
conceive of no circumstance under which we would ever grant readmission to
respondent. Therefore, she must be permanently disbarred.
DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committees
and disciplinary board, and considering the record, the brief filed by the ODC, and
oral argument, it is ordered that Janinne Latrell Gilbert, Louisiana Bar Roll number
30249, be and she hereby is permanently disbarred. Her name shall be stricken from
the roll of attorneys and her license to practice law in the State of Louisiana shall be
revoked. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(A), it is further ordered that
respondent be permanently prohibited from being readmitted to the practice of law
in this state. It is further ordered that respondent pay restitution of $2,000 plus legal
interest to Denton Auzenne and/or to the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Client
Assistance Fund, as appropriate. 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.
9
09/22/17
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2017-B-0524
IN RE: JANINNE LATRELL GILBERT
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons:
I agree with this Court’s decision to permanently disbar Respondent. This
Court’s per curiam exhaustively described the stunning facts underlying this case. I
write separately because one aspect merits spotlighting—Respondent’s utter failure
to participate in the disciplinary matter, including Respondent’s failure to cooperate
with the disciplinary agency, file briefs, and appear before this Court for oral
argument. As I have noted before, I believe such a lack of respect for the profession
can support the sanction of permanent disbarment. See, e.g., In re Fahrenholtz, 2017-
0261, p. 2 (La. 4/7/17), 215 So.3d 204, 209–10 (Crichton, J., dissenting and would
impose permanent disbarment) (“[R]espondent blatantly refused to cooperate with
ODC in violation of Rule 8.4(a), both in this case and [a previous case] . . . . [I]t is
difficult to imagine how respondent could have been any more uncooperative.”); In
re Mendy, 2016-0456, p. 11 (La. 10/19/16), 217 So.3d 260, 266 (Crichton, J.,
dissenting and would impose permanent disbarment) (“Respondent’s evident lack of
interest in defending these serious charges against him, coupled with his past
sanctions, has no place in this noble profession.”).