You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

In re Arata

Citations: 182 So. 3d 36; 2015 La. LEXIS 2618; 2015 WL 8683300Docket: No. 2015-B-1837

Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana; November 5, 2015; Louisiana; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

William Harrell Arata, Louisiana Bar Roll number 23431, has entered into a joint petition for consent discipline with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), acknowledging violations of several provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.4, 1.8(h), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c). The court has accepted this petition and ordered a suspension of Arata from the practice of law for one year and one day, with the execution of all but six months of the suspension deferred. Additionally, all costs and expenses related to the disciplinary proceedings are to be assessed against Arata, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX. 10.1, with legal interest accruing thirty days after the court's judgment becomes final until payment is made.

Legal Issues Addressed

Assessment of Costs and Expenses in Disciplinary Proceedings

Application: All costs and expenses of the proceedings were assessed against Arata, accruing interest if unpaid after a specified period.

Reasoning: Additionally, all costs and expenses related to the disciplinary proceedings are to be assessed against Arata, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX. 10.1, with legal interest accruing thirty days after the court's judgment becomes final until payment is made.

Consent Discipline in Professional Misconduct Cases

Application: The respondent, William Harrell Arata, entered into a joint petition with the ODC acknowledging violations, which led to a consent discipline agreement.

Reasoning: William Harrell Arata, Louisiana Bar Roll number 23431, has entered into a joint petition for consent discipline with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), acknowledging violations of several provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Disciplinary Sanctions Imposed by the Court

Application: The court imposed a suspension from practice for one year and one day, deferring all but six months, reflecting the seriousness of the violations.

Reasoning: The court has accepted this petition and ordered a suspension of Arata from the practice of law for one year and one day, with the execution of all but six months of the suspension deferred.

Violations of Rules of Professional Conduct

Application: Arata violated Rules 1.4, 1.8(h), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c), which are grounds for disciplinary action by the court.

Reasoning: Acknowledging violations of several provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.4, 1.8(h), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).