I agree with the Courts imposition of the sanction of disbarment here. I write separately to point out, as I have in the past, that I consider it troublesome when attorney respondents fail to participate meaningfully in the proceedings against them. An attorneys failure to participate in disciplinary proceedings is alarming, as it leaves little opportunity for this Court to consider mitigating evidence and, when coupled with serious misconduct, often leads to substantial sanctions. See, e.g., In re Kelly, 20-0118 (La. 6/3/20), 298 So. 3d 161 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring) (collecting cases); In re Dangerfield, 20-0116 (La. 5/14/20), 296 So. 3d 595; (Crichton, J., additionally concurring, highlighting respondents “stunning indifference to the disciplinary process, resulting in no viable and reasonable choice other than permanent disbarment.”); In re Hingel, 2019-1459 (La. 11/19/19), 300 So. 3d 815 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring and noting the “outrageous violations” by an “unresponsive, uncooperative, and recalcitrant lawyer”); In re Gaubert, 18-1980 (La. 2/11/19), 263 So.3d 408 (Crichton, J. additionally concurring, pointing out respondents “disdain for the disciplinary process”); In re Montgomery, 18-0637 (La. 8/31/18), 251 So.3d 401 (Crichton, J. dissenting, finding disbarment appropriate where respondent made “zero effort” to respond to any of the accusations against him). As serious as the violations outlined are, in my view, the indifference he demonstrated toward the Rules of Professional Conduct further supports the sanction imposed.
Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.