Preview:

03/12/2010 "See News Release 016 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 09-B-2503 IN RE: THOMAS HABERSHAM SETZE

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM*
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Thomas Habersham Setze, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently ineligible to practice.1

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In August 2002, the ODC filed the first of four sets of formal charges against respondent in 02-DB-076. Respondent answered the formal charges, requesting that they be dismissed because discipline, in the form of an admonition, had already been imposed for the underlying misconduct.2 In April 2005, a second set of formal charges was filed in 05-DB-047. Respondent answered the formal charges, denying the alleged misconduct. The two matters were then consolidated by order of the hearing committee chair before proceeding to a formal hearing on the merits conducted by the hearing committee in May and June 2006.

*

Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.

Respondent has been ineligible to practice law since July 24, 2008 for failing to comply with mandatory continuing legal education requirements. He has also been ineligible since October 2, 2008 for failing to file his trust account statement. Additionally, he has been ineligible since September 9, 2009 for failing to pay his bar dues and the disciplinary assessment. The adjudicative committee of the disciplinary board did not approve the admonition. However, the ODC failed to informed respondent of the adjudicative committee's decision prior to filing formal charges against him.
2

1

The third set of formal charges, 06-DB-064, was filed in October 2006; and the fourth set of formal charges, 08-DB-044, was filed in May 2008. Respondent failed to answer these two sets of formal charges. Accordingly, the factual allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download 2009-B-2503 IN RE: THOMAS HABERSHAM SETZE.pdf

Louisiana Law