NEW ORLEANS (Louisiana Record) — Ponchatoula attorney Carol E. Parker faces possible suspension following a recommendation issued Aug. 20 by a Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board (LADB) hearing committee over alleged misconduct committed eight years ago.
LADB Hearing Committee No. 62 recommended Parker be suspended three months with all but 30 days deferred and that she be ordered to pay all costs in the proceedings, according to the 11-page recommendation issued by the committee. The recommendation was signed Aug. 17 by committee chair Mark J. Mansfield. Attorney member Kenneth P. Mathews and public member Verlean W. Randolph concurred in the recommendation.
Parker allegedly filed "frivolous and baseless motions" to recuse judges in the case to delay the community property partition trial, the recommendation said. During hearing in June, Parker allegedly testified that she had not been prepared for trial and felt she had to file for recusal to delay the proceedings to 'buy time' for discovery, according to the recommendation.
Parker "simply was unprepared for trial and did not follow the appropriate procedure to seek a delay," the recommendation said.
Parker was admitted to the bar in Louisiana on Oct. 5, 1990, according to her profile at the Louisiana State Bar Association's website. Parker had no prior discipline before the state bar, according to the hearing committee's report.
Formal charges were filed against Parker in November over allegations stemming from a 2010 community property case prior to a divorce.
Parker's substantial legal experience and her "refusal to acknowledge wrongful conduct" were considered aggravating factors in the proceedings, the recommendation said. "Mitigating factors are the absence of a prior record, the excessive length of time it took this matter to bring to hearing and her cooperation in the proceedings," the recommendation said.
"Due to the fact that the conduct complained of is almost eight years ago, some of the witnesses could not recall with absolute certainty some of the facts, so quantification of actual harm to the opposing party was speculative. However, it is clear from the testimony and evidence presented at trial that her conduct was disruptive and harmful."