In Re: Elise Marybeth Lamartina, 235 So. 3d 1061

Background

Elise Marybeth LaMartina, admitted 2006, was previously suspended (one year and one day deferred) and had that suspension made executory after probation violations in 2012; she remains suspended and has not sought reinstatement.
In 2011 and January 2015 LaMartina committed two shoplifting offenses; she pleaded guilty in October 2015 to both (one involved $7.29 hair dye).
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) sent three letters requesting a written explanation; LaMartina did not respond.
ODC filed formal charges (violations of La. RPC Rules 8.1(b), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(b)); LaMartina failed to answer, so the allegations were deemed admitted.
The hearing committee found the baseline ABA sanction to be disbarment, identified multiple aggravating factors (prior disciplinary record, dishonest motive, pattern, multiple offenses, illegal conduct), and recommended disbarment.
The disciplinary board, acknowledging scant Louisiana precedent but relying on analogous Ohio cases, recommended a three-year suspension (two dissenters would have disbarred); the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the three-year suspension and assessed costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether respondent committed professional misconduct warranting discipline	ODC: Guilty pleas to two shoplifting offenses plus failure to cooperate constitute violations of La. RPC 8.1(b), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(b)	LaMartina did not answer the charges (deemed admitted); at oral argument she appeared and offered mitigation but did not contest the deemed-admitted facts	Court held the deemed-admitted facts prove violations of the cited rules
Appropriate baseline sanction for the misconduct	ODC/hearing committee: ABA baseline is disbarment given intentional misconduct and actual harm	Respondent urged mitigation at oral argument; disciplinary board looked to out-of-state authority to justify suspension instead of disbarment	Court agreed baseline per ABA is disbarment but adopted board's recommendation of a three-year suspension given comparison to similar Ohio cases
Aggravating/mitigating factors and their weight	ODC and committee: multiple aggravating factors present; no mitigators	Respondent offered mitigation at oral argument (personal circumstances) but presented nothing to the record before committee	Court found the same aggravating factors and no mitigating factors sufficient to warrant significant suspension
Reliance on deemed-admitted procedure and need for additional proof of legal conclusions	ODC: deemed admissions relieve ODC of proving facts; legal conclusions flowing from facts may require evidence	Respondent did not move to vacate deemed admissions or present contrary evidence	Court applied Rule XIX §11(E)(3): factual allegations deemed admitted and sufficient to support rule violations; no additional proof required here

Key Cases Cited

In re: LaMartina, 38 So.3d 266 (La. 2010) (prior deferred suspension imposed)
In re: LaMartina, 89 So.3d 1164 (La. 2012) (previous probation revoked and suspension made executory)
Cincinnati Bar Ass’n v. Moore, 36 N.E.3d 171 (Ohio 2015) (two shoplifting incidents resulted in multi-year suspension with partial deferral)
Toledo Bar Ass’n v. Lockhart, 701 N.E.2d 686 (Ohio 1998) (multiple shoplifting convictions and record tampering warranted multi-year suspension)
Cincinnati Bar Ass’n v. Fidler, 700 N.E.2d 323 (Ohio 1998) (two shoplifting convictions resulted in suspension with portion deferred)
In re: Banks, 18 So.3d 57 (La. 2009) (appellate review in bar disciplinary matters; court acts as trier of fact)
In re: Donnan, 838 So.2d 715 (La. 2003) (deemed-admitted facts suffice for allegations but legal conclusions may require further proof)
Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So.2d 1173 (La. 1987) (purposes of disciplinary proceedings)
Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So.2d 520 (La. 1984) (discipline depends on facts and aggravating/mitigating circumstances)