NOTA BENE
Latin for "note well." Each month N.B. features ethics, professionalism and board developments.

December, 2018

The Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board Launches the Ethical Lawyer Learning Initiative


The members of the Louisiana Supreme Court, Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board and Office of Disciplinary Counsel have seen young lawyers struggle to make the transition from law student to lawyer. Many of these new lawyers are facing steep financial hurdles. Others have found themselves in disciplinary trouble because they are unfamiliar with the practical application of the disciplinary rules and they lack fundamental training in business and practice management principles. In order to help these young lawyers, the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board is launching its Ethical Lawyer Learning Initiative (“ELLI”). Through this initiative, the LADB seeks to:

  • provide free CLE hours to newly admitted lawyers;
  • educate young lawyers about disciplinary issues so that disciplinary complaints may be avoided;
  • provide basic information to young lawyers concerning law office management skills and available technologies;
  • increase awareness about health and wellness issues affecting lawyers; and
  • provide a platform for the sharing of information by disciplinary counsel, experienced lawyers, judges, clerks of court, and others, with young lawyers.

As part of the initiative, the LADB will offer four hours of free on-line, on-demand Continuing Legal Education programming to newly admitted lawyers for each of their first two MCLE compliance periods. The Board will also offer free live CLE programming to new lawyers. In addition, the LADB’s monthly e-newsletter, Nota Bene, will feature short videos on law office management, technology and other useful topics designed to help newly admitted lawyers, in a quick and easy-to-use format.

It is the hope of the members of the Court, Board and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, that the information and opportunities provided through this initiative will help new lawyers succeed during their initial years of practice and beyond.

Anderson Dotson, III introduces the ELLI program

October, 2018

Christopher Kiesel Joins ODC as Deputy Disciplinary Counsel


One of the newest additions to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel is Christopher David Kiesel, a 1999 graduate of the LSU Law Center. Notably, Chris served on the Law Center’s Disciplinary Honor Council. A founding member and partner of the Keegan, DeNicola, Kiesel, Bagwell, Juban and Lowe firm in Baton Rouge, his private practice focused on the investigation, pursuit and defense of complex professional liability claims across the country. Chris has experience in the areas of insurance, bankruptcy, banking, and real estate law. He also has extensive experience with civil RICO claims. Answering what he felt was a long-standing calling to help in the regulation of his profession, Chris left a well-established and successful private practice to join the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in April 2018. During his tenure with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Chris has demonstrated not only a keen grasp of the Rules of Professional Conduct, but also an ability to digest complex ethical problems and sort out issues in a sharp, well-reasoned manner. A native of Baton Rouge, Chris has been married to his wife, Corrie, for twenty years, and they have two daughters, ages sixteen and thirteen. Outside of work, Chris enjoys attending sporting events and participating in outdoor activities with his family.

September, 2018

Recent Decisions From the Louisiana Supreme Court


IN RE NICHOLE GOUDEAU (New Orleans), 2018-B-0638, (8/31/18). The Court suspended the respondent for one year and one day for accepting a legal fee and practicing law while ineligible to do so and for failing to refund the legal fee to her client.

IN RE PAUL E. BROWN (Houma), 2017-B-1930, (9/18/18). The Court suspended the respondent for one year and one day, with all but ninety days deferred, subject to a two-year period of probation and other conditions, for misconduct based upon his plea of no contest to first offense DWI, careless operation of a motor vehicle, and vehicular negligent injuring.

IN RE JOHN N. BOKENFOHR (Shreveport), 2018-B-0718, (9/21/18). The Court dismissed the formal charges brought against the respondent. This case addressed the obligations of an attorney who learned his client had failed to produce evidence in response to a search warrant in an ongoing criminal investigation. In this matter, the respondent was ultimately successful in persuading his client to allow him to release the evidence to the authorities; however, this release occurred approximately three months after the respondent learned of the existence of the evidence, during which time the respondent had an expert retrieve, preserve, and copy the evidence. The Court found that Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(b) was primarily at issue. This rule provides that a lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. The Court determined that the hearing committee’s finding that the respondent’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances was not clearly wrong. Finding no rule violations, the Court dismissed the matter. The Court emphasized that the determination of whether a lawyer has fulfilled the duties imposed under Rule 3.3(b) will turn on the specific facts presented in each individual case.

Deemed Admitted Matters (Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XIX, panel-body 11(E)(3)):

IN RE NEIL DENNIS WILLIAM MONTGOMERY (Destrehan), 2018-B-0637, (8/31/18). The Court suspended the respondent for one year and one day for failing to comply with bar obligations, neglecting legal matters, failing to communicate with clients, failing to account for fees, and failing to cooperate with ODC in its investigations.

IN RE CHANTELL M. BOUTTE (Lafayette), 2018-B-0901, (9/21/18). The Court disbarred the respondent for neglecting legal matters, failing to communicate with clients, converting client funds, failing to properly disclose her client trust account information, and failing to cooperate with ODC in its investigation.

IN RE SHELLEY ANN MARTIN (New Orleans), 2018-B-0900, (9/21/18). The Court disbarred the respondent, retroactive to the date of her interim suspension, for misconduct involving possession of drug paraphernalia associated with heroin use, possession of cocaine, engaging in a sexual relationship with a client and introducing the client to drugs, representing the client while respondent was ineligible to practice law, involvement in a motor vehicle accident while driving with a suspended license, and being a fugitive from justice with multiple warrants issued for respondent’s arrest.

Consent Discipline:

IN RE MICHAEL J. BILLIOT (Houma), 2018-B-1098, (8/31/18). ODC commenced an investigation into the respondent’s arrests for driving while intoxicated. Following the filing of formal charges, the respondent and ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which the parties stipulated that the respondent violated Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a) and 8.4(b). The Court accepted the petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day, fully deferred, subject to a period of probation to coincide with the term of respondent’s recovery agreement with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program.

IN RE JOSEPH BURCHMAN ROCHELLE (Destrehan), 2018-B-9050, (9/14/18). ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent certified in his official capacity as a notary that the parties to an act of donation signed the instrument in his presence, when in fact they did not. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the respondent and ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. The Court accepted the petition for consent discipline and ordered that the respondent be publicly reprimanded.

IN RE BRIAN K. THOMPSON (Alexandria), 2018-B-1237, (9/14/18). ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent mishandled his client trust account and failed to supervise a non-lawyer employee. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the respondent and ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline in which respondent admitted that his conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15 and 5.3. The Court accepted the petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day, fully deferred, subject to respondent’s successful completion of a two-year period of probation with conditions.

IN RE PHYLLIS SOUTHALL (Gonzales), 2018-B-1401, (9/21/18). ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, failed to place advanced costs into a trust account, and failed to refund unearned fees. Respondent subsequently failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. The misconduct occurred in the same general time frame as the misconduct forming the basis of respondent’s earlier disciplinary matter, wherein she was suspended from the practice of law for three years. The respondent and ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. The Court accepted the petition, adjudging the respondent guilty of additional violations which warranted discipline and which may be considered in the event she applies for reinstatement from her suspension in In re Southall, 14-2441 (La. 3/17/15), 165 So.3d 894, after becoming eligible to do so.

Reciprocal Discipline Pursuant to Rule XIX, panel-body 21:

IN RE RONALD B. MANNING (Amite), 2018-B-0688, (9/14/18). The Court disbarred the respondent based upon an order of the Texas Board of Disciplinary Appeals.

IN RE SABINUS A. MEGWA (Phoenix, AZ), 2018-B-0778, (9/14/18). The Court suspended the respondent for thirty days, followed by an eighteen-month period of supervised probation, based upon an order of the Supreme Court of Arizona.

July, 2018

Yolanda Cezar Promoted to Head the Screening Division


The Chief Disciplinary Counsel has announced recently that Yolanda Cezar has been promoted to head the Screening Division of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. While new to that position, Yolanda brings a wealth of experience to this important support position within the Disciplinary Counsel’s office. She has spent over 11 years as a deputy disciplinary counsel, where she has investigated thousands of complaints of misconduct, successfully prosecuted hundreds of serious misconduct cases, and presented oral argument before the Louisiana Supreme Court. With over 2700 written complaints filed annually, Yolanda is now charged with the review and analysis of each of those complaints and making the initial determination of those warranting disciplinary investigation or diversion to alternative disciplinary action. “I have the utmost confidence in Yolanda, and I have entrusted her with the important task of analyzing all incoming complaints to chart their path forward. Over her many years with this office, Yolanda has demonstrated an unfailing commitment to the Rules of Professional Conduct and to the proper functioning of the ODC,” said Charles Plattsmier, the Chief Disciplinary Counsel.

March, 2018

The Public Side of Lawyer Discipline: The Role of Non-Lawyer Public Members

Reprinted from Louisiana Bar Journal, Vol. 65, No. 5, February/March 2018, published by the Louisiana State Bar Association.


If someone called and asked if you would be willing to volunteer your time for the next six years helping to regulate a profession of which you were not a part of, would you? If told it paid nothing, generated little or no fanfare, would entail spending hundreds of hours of your time annually reviewing documents, listening to testimony and helping to draft opinions, would you be interested? I suspect many of us would politely decline and chuckle at the notion after hanging up the phone.

But since April 1, 1990, literally hundreds of non-lawyers have volunteered their time and effort to support the Supreme Court’s regulation of Louisiana’s legal profession. The inclusion of non-lawyers in our disciplinary system has proven to be perhaps the most significant and successful part of the Court’s decision to enact Rule XIX nearly 28 years ago and it continues to pay divi-dends today.

Mindful that the public traditionally has held some in our legal profession in pretty low regard, many lawyers were apprehensive about such a radical change. How would non-lawyers possibly understand the ethical issues presented? Others were firm in the belief that placing nonlawyers on hearing committees as well as on the Disciplinary Board would result in unreasonable and perhaps draconian recommendations for discipline. What we quickly learned, however, was that the non-lawyer public member had much to contribute and, in some ways, made the disciplinary system itself even more accountable, balanced and fair.

Every day we entrust the fate of clients to the fact-finding wisdom of juries composed largely of non-lawyers in both our civil and criminal justice systems. The historical exclusion of members of the public from our lawyer discipline system was odd and frankly did little to engender trust and confidence of consumers of legal services (clients) in our secretive, “lawyers-only” regulatory process. While opening up the disciplinary process to the sunshine of public scrutiny once formal charges were filed did much to sweep away skepticism and mistrust, the inclusion of non-lawyers into the process cemented the public’s ownership in one of the few self-regulatory professions in the nation — the legal profession.

The result has been successful by any measure. Public members take the task seriously, come prepared for hearings having read the briefs and record, and ask some of the most probing and fundamentally sound questions of everyone involved. In fact, it has often been a source of embarrassment for the lawyer participants in disciplinary hearings when the most cogent, probing and direct questions come from the public member, leaving many of the lawyers in the room to wonder, “Why didn’t I ask that?”

Who are these folks and where do they come from? They are bankers, teachers, insurance agents, secretaries, cement contractors, psychologists, counselors, nurses, financial planners, principals and farmers, to name just a few. From every corner of the state, these folks sit on the nearly 50 hearing committees that currently serve the Court’s disciplinary agency. They also sit on the Disciplinary Board by appointment of the justices. They are recruited by board members, lawyers, Supreme Court justices, and former committee or board members.

Perhaps the most interesting question is why they would choose to serve in the first place. When introduced to the Louisiana Disciplinary Board, many are surprised that such a regulatory apparatus even exists. As they hear about the system, its history and its structure, whether in Rotary meetings, over lunch with a current or former committee member, or in a chat with a justice, the public member may be a bit skeptical, but also intrigued. When told they would play an important role in the regulatory process, many no doubt feel the draw of curiosity and public service. Whatever the motivation, the new participant is soon immersed in a two-day training seminar — conducted annually — that not only introduces them to the Court’s regulatory system found in Rule XIX, but also the Rules of Professional Conduct, how they apply, and the Court’s rich jurisprudence on enforcement. Instructors include board members, hearing committee members, respondent’s counsel, board counsel, dis-ciplinary counsel and others. When training is completed, they are assigned to a committee panel with two attorney members to serve within their Court of Appeal district when called upon.

What we’ve seen is that non-lawyers are often the conscience of the panel they sit on. There can be an insight that public members bring to the task, born of common sense and experience that can level the advocacy and bring into sharp focus the gravity — or lack thereof — stemming from a lawyer’s mistake. Over the last three decades, many public member dissents have been so persuasive for the board and the Court that their view ultimately prevails. While it is hard to quantify the importance of the public members’ contribution on any given case, it is unquestionably true that their articipation brings value to the process and sensitivity to outcomes.

As lawyers, we owed an enormous debt of gratitude to all members of the discipline system, particularly our volunteers. But among those many hundreds of volunteers who have served the Court’s regulatory system over nearly three decades, none are more deserving of our thanks, our appreciation and our admiration than those non-lawyer public members who take the time to help us be better as a profession. We salute you.

Charles Plattsmier
Charles B. Plattsmier, Chief Disciplinary Counsel
Charles B. Plattsmier became Louisiana’s chief disciplinary counsel in 1996 and today stands as the longest-serving chief counsel under the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board. He has authored amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct and Supreme Court Rule 19, served in the Louisiana State Bar Association’s House of Delegates from 1983-95, and was a member of the Ethics 2000 Committee which updated and amended Louisiana’s ethics rules. He was a 2002 nominee for the ABA Michael Franck Professional Responsibility Award and, in 2009, received the ABA CoLAP Meritorious Service Award for his commitment to Louisiana Lawyers Assistance Program. He received his JD degree in 1978 from Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center. (chuckp@ladb.org; Ste. 607, 4000 S. Sherwood Forest Blvd., Baton Rouge, LA 70816).

Observations from One Layman at the Bench

Reprinted from Louisiana Bar Journal, Vol. 65, No. 5, February/March 2018, published by the Louisiana State Bar Association.


I had worked with attorneys extensively handling litigation claims when one attorney asked if I would like to become an Attorney Disciplinary Hearing Committee lay member It was with some trepidation that I agreed to apply for the position but I was accepted. I had no idea what I had gotten myself into, but was pleasantly surprised by the experience.

The three-member committee was comprised of myself and two attorneys. My expectation was that the attorneys would handle most everything and I would be “window dressing.” However, that was not my experience. I was somewhat dumbfounded when we heard our first case. I attempted to give input during the committee discussion about what our recommendation would be for the attorney brought up on disciplinary charges. I expected a courteous hearing by the two attorney committee members, but not much else. In fact, what they said was that my opinion was very important to them in reaching a decision.

Over the period of my term, I was involved in several cases with a few different attorney committee members. All of the attorneys held my opinion in high regard as a layman. They were very interested in what a non-attorney thought about the activities by the respondent attorney who was the subject of the hearing. My opinion was less about whether the respondent attorney had run afoul of the ethical guidelines than about a common-sense opinion of whether the actions in question met the smell test. My criteria included, in addition to the ethical standards at question, whether the actions of the respondent put the bar in a bad light with the public and, therefore, undermined the integrity of the justice system.

In some cases, I agreed that a technical violation had occurred but that the violation was not offensive to the eyes of the public. My opinion in these cases would somewhat mitigate the recommendation of the committee. In other cases, I found that there was an attempt to abuse the disciplinary system by the complainant for reasons not related to ethical behavior. There were also cases that were a clear ethical lapse that would inure to the detriment of the legal system. In these cases, I recommended strong disciplinary action and found the attorney committee members moved by my opinion to make a strong ruling.

In addition to the final discussions that led to a recommendation, I also learned to enjoy the role of factfinder with the three-member hearing committee sitting and listening to testimony. I was encouraged to ask questions of the witnesses and found the experience enlightening. After years of investigating facts and evaluating liability ranges in insurance claims, it was a very helpful experience to actually sit in the position of factfinder.

The Attorney Disciplinary Board is a very important piece of keeping the legal system in our state ethical. I was honored to be a part of it and recommend the experience to others. I also appreciate that the attorneys who served with me were open to my input and judgment.

Michael DesJardins
Michael DesJardins recently retired after 24 years as a liability claims adjuster for State Farm Insurance and about 16 years previously in the ministry. The experiences with giving pastoral care and handling insurance claims helped him develop a strong concern for justice and integrity. Both concerns helped him in his tenure with the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board Hearing Committee. DesJardins and his husband live in New Orleans. Email: mike953@comcast.net.