In Re: Janinne Latrell Gilbert
2017-B-0524
| La. | Sep 22, 2017Background
- Janinne Latrell Gilbert, admitted 2006, had prior disbarment in 2016 for multiple professional violations (In re: Gilbert).
- In 2015 Gilbert accepted $2,000 from Denton Auzenne to file a filiation petition but failed to file the petition or return unearned fees; she failed to respond to requests for an accounting.
- Gilbert did not answer formal disciplinary charges; the allegations were therefore deemed admitted under Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3).
- After her 2016 disbarment, Gilbert appeared in court as counsel in March 2016, despite notice of her disbarment, prompting additional charges for unauthorized practice.
- Hearing committees recommended permanent disbarment and restitution of $2,000; the disciplinary board recommended disbarment with a five‑year extension before readmission and restitution.
- The Supreme Court independently reviewed the record, found multiple Rule violations, and ordered permanent disbarment with restitution and assessment of costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neglect, failure to refund unearned fee, lack of communication | ODC: Gilbert neglected client matters, failed to refund/account for $2,000, and failed to communicate | Gilbert: no response to formal charges; no argument presented to rebut deemed‑admitted facts | Held: Violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.5(f)(5), 1.16(d); restitution ordered $2,000 plus interest |
| Unauthorized practice after disbarment | ODC: Gilbert knowingly appeared as counsel after notice of disbarment, violating Rule 5.5(a) and 8.4(d) | Gilbert: claimed she “had no idea” she could not practice (rejected by committee) | Held: Violations of 5.5(a) and 8.4(d); appearance after notice supports sanction of permanent disbarment |
| Failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigation | ODC: Gilbert failed to respond to ODC inquiries and to participate in proceedings, violating Rules 8.1(b), 8.1(c) | Gilbert: no responsive submissions; no mitigation shown | Held: Violations proven; aggravating factor supporting harsher discipline |
| Appropriate sanction (permanent disbarment vs. time‑limited) | ODC: urged greater discipline; hearing committees: permanent disbarment; board: disbarment with 5‑year bar to readmission | Gilbert: did not participate to argue for mitigation | Held: Court orders permanent disbarment and permanent prohibition on readmission; costs and restitution awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- In re: Gilbert, 185 So. 3d 734 (La. 2016) (prior disbarment decision involving respondent)
- In re: Banks, 18 So. 3d 57 (La. 2009) (court as trier of fact in disciplinary matters and independent review)
- In re: Donnan, 838 So. 2d 715 (La. 2003) (limitations of deemed‑admitted facts in proving legal conclusions)
- 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, seriousness, aggravation/mitigation)
- In re Fahrenholtz, 215 So. 3d 204 (La. 2017) (court commentary on uncooperative respondents supporting permanent disbarment)
- In re Mendy, 217 So. 3d 260 (La. 2016) (similar observations regarding respondent nonparticipation and serious sanctions)