Joint motion to extend probation granted. See per curiam
On June 3, 2019, we suspended respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, with all but thirty days deferred, followed by a two-year period of supervised probation based on allegations respondent mishandled her trust account and failed to cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) in its investigation. In re: James, 19-0653 (La. 6/3/19), 272 So. 3d 535. The terms of respondents probation included a condition that she submit to quarterly trust account auditing.
Prior to the expiration of the probationary period, the parties filed a joint motion seeking to extend respondents probation for a period of one year. In support, they assert the extension is warranted to address some reoccurring issues uncovered during the prior trust account audits.
In light of these circumstances, we agree that the requested extension is appropriate. Accordingly, we will extend respondents probation for an additional year, subject to the condition she continue to submit quarterly trust account reports to the ODC.
DECREE
Considering the Joint Motion to Extend Probation filed by respondent and the ODC, it is ordered that the two-year period of probation imposed upon respondent in In re: James, 19-0653 (La. 6/3/19), 272 So. 3d 535, be extended for a period of one year. During the extended period, respondent will continue to submit quarterly trust account audit reports to the ODC. Any failure by respondent to comply with this condition or any other misconduct during the probationary period may be grounds for revocation of probation and imposition of the previously-deferred suspension or other discipline, as appropriate.
I previously wrote that I would have rejected the initial consent discipline imposed in this matter, In re: James, 19-0653 (La. 6/3/19), 272 So. 3d 535 (Crichton, J., would reject consent discipline, finding respondents conduct warranted a more lengthy suspension), and I now would deny the respondents motion to extend probation. The joint submission to the Court seeking to extend respondents probation indicates, to me, that she still does not take seriously the sanction this Court imposed nearly two years ago. The submission states that respondent “just recently successfully attended and completed Trust Accounting School” and represents that respondents quarterly trust account audits show ongoing issues, including, inter alia, issues related to timeliness of the submission of audits to the ODC and errors in the trust accounts. This is despite the fact that our June 2019 order required her to maintain her account in accordance with La. Sup. Ct. R. XIX § 28(A).
Though I acknowledge the joint submissions representation that respondents actions have not caused harm to the public, I point out that respondent has had nearly two years to comply with the requirements imposed in June 2019, yet she has not done so. In my view, under the circumstances presented, no further extension is warranted here.
A lawyer must be able to balance and maintain his or her trust account in order to practice law. I concur in the extension of probation to give respondent a last opportunity to correct her errors or to hire a third party to do so.
Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Genovese, J., dissents and would reject the joint motion to extend probation.
Crain, J., concurs and assigns reasons.