In re Hammond, 56 So. 3d 199

ODC filed 24 counts against Hammond (March 2008) alleging sexual misconduct with inmates, neglect of matters, and unauthorized practice after interim suspension; core focus on Counts I–II (sexual misconduct) and XXIV (unauthorized practice) as decisive misconduct
Hammond admitted none of the misconduct; hearing committee found extensive violations across Counts I–XII and XXIV, with grave aggravation and no mitigating factors
Disciplinary Committee recommended permanent disbarment after finding baseline disbarment with upward deviation due to egregious conduct, and restitution obligations to several clients
Disciplinary Board largely affirmed with minor factual corrections and some rule reclassifications, including upholding Rule 1.8(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) in core counts and adjusting ancillary rule applications
Louisiana Supreme Court conducted independent review, found clear and convincing evidence of professional misconduct, and imposed permanent disbarment with restitution and costs payable to clients and the Client Assistance Fund
Final Decree ordered Hammond disbarred, permanently prohibited from readmission, restitution to clients, repayment of CA Fund, and costs with interest

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proven sexual misconduct with inmates (Counts I–II)	ODC: counts proven by clear and convincing evidence; coerced sexual acts via assistant; videotaped acts	Hammond: some counts not proven; defense of misconduct not as alleged	Counts I–II established by clear and convincing evidence
Unauthorized practice of law following interim suspension (Count XXIV)	Hammond engaged in law practice and client fund handling despite suspension	Hammond acted under Burrell’s supervision; no deliberate misconduct	Unauthorized practice proven; disciplinary consequences upheld
Sanction appropriate given misconduct (overall discipline)	Disbarment warranted due to pattern of egregious misconduct and harm to clients	Mitigating factors minimal or absent; disciplinary board’s recommended sanction	Permanent disbarment appropriate; restitution ordered to clients; costs assessed
Authority and combination of findings supporting core violations (Counts I–XII, XXIV)	Clear and convincing evidence across core counts; independently reviewable	Some findings overstated or misapplied ancillary rules	Court agrees to sustained core violations and sanctions; corrects ancillary rule applications as needed
Restitution and cost orders enforceability	Respondent must restore unearned fees and funds to affected clients and CA Fund	Restitution determinations should reflect corrected findings	Restitution to clients and CA Fund confirmed; costs awarded

Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So.2d 1173 (La. 1987) (discipline standards; purpose to protect public and integrity of the profession)
Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So.2d 520 (La. 1984) (guidelines for determining appropriate sanction in disciplinary matters)
In re: Caulfield, 683 So.2d 714 (La. 1996) (manifest error standard for factual findings; independent review by Supreme Court)
In re: Pardue, 633 So.2d 150 (La. 1994) (baseline and aggravation/mitigation considerations in sanctions)
In re: Ryland, 985 So.2d 71 (La. 2008) (precedent on disciplinary standards and sanctions)
In re: Touchet, 753 So.2d 820 (La. 2000) (prior comparable misconduct guiding sanction decisions)
In re: Banks, 18 So.3d 57 (La. 2009) (independent review standard for disciplinary findings; manifest error standard)