Narrative Opinion Summary
Respondent Joseph N. Mole, Louisiana Bar Roll number 9588, acknowledged engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and implying an ability to improperly influence a judge, violating Rules 8.4(d) and 8.4(e) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. A joint petition for consent discipline was submitted by the respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The court accepted this petition and ordered Mole to be suspended from practicing law for one year, with six months of the suspension deferred. Additionally, all costs and expenses related to the proceedings are to be assessed against the respondent, accruing legal interest starting thirty days after the judgment becomes final.
Legal Issues Addressed
Assessment of Costs in Disciplinary Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ordered the respondent to bear all costs and expenses related to the disciplinary proceedings, with interest accruing after a specified period.
Reasoning: Additionally, all costs and expenses related to the proceedings are to be assessed against the respondent, accruing legal interest starting thirty days after the judgment becomes final.
Consent Discipline in Attorney Misconduct Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A joint petition for consent discipline was submitted and accepted by the court, resulting in a suspension for the attorney.
Reasoning: A joint petition for consent discipline was submitted by the respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The court accepted this petition and ordered Mole to be suspended from practicing law for one year, with six months of the suspension deferred.
Violation of Rules of Professional Conductsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The respondent admitted to conduct that violated specific ethical rules, leading to disciplinary action.
Reasoning: Respondent Joseph N. Mole, Louisiana Bar Roll number 9588, acknowledged engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and implying an ability to improperly influence a judge, violating Rules 8.4(d) and 8.4(e) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.