
    In re Randy J. UNGAR.
    No. 2016-OB-0394.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 20, 2016.
   PER CURIAM.

h This proceeding arises out of an application for reinstatement filed by petitioner, Randy J. Ungar, an attorney currently suspended from the practice of law in Louisiana.

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In In re: Ungar, 09-0573 (La.10/30/09), 25 So.3d 101, we suspended petitioner from the practice of law for three years for withholding information from his clients in an effort to hide the amount of a settlement and thereby charge an excessive fee. In May 2012, petitioner filed an application for reinstatement to the practice of law. At that time, we denied reinstatement. In re: Ungar, 13-0521 (La.4/5/13), 110 So.3d 1080.

Petitioner subsequently filed the instant application for reinstatement with the disciplinary board, alleging he has complied with the reinstatement criteria set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(E). The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) objected to the application for reinstatement. Accordingly, the matter was referred for a formal hearing before a hearing committee.

Following the hearing, the hearing committee recommended that petitioner be reinstated to the practice of law. The ODC objected to the hearing committee’s recommendation, and the matter was reviewed by the disciplinary board. A12majority of the board recommended that petitioner’s application for reinstatement be granted, with three members dissenting.

After considering the record in its entirety, we will adopt the board’s recommendation and reinstate petitioner to the practice of law. As found by the committee and the majority of the board, the record provides clear and convincing evidence of petitioner’s compliance with the reinstatement criteria. In particular, the record indicates that petitioner has acknowledged his misconduct, has taken full responsibility for the harm caused to his clients, and has expressed that he has learned from his past mistakes.

Under these circumstances, we find petitioner has shown that he possesses the requisite competence, honesty, and integrity to be reinstated to the practice of law.

DECREE

Upon review of the recommendation of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Randy J. Ungar, Louisiana Bar Roll number 12387, be immediately reinstated to the practice of law in Louisiana. All costs of these proceedings are assessed against petitioner.

KNOLL, J., would deny reinstatement.

CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

CRICHTON, J.,

additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

hi agree with the majority’s reinstatement of the applicant. The view of the majority, as expressed in the per curiam, is that the applicant has satisfied each of the requirements for reinstatement under Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(E). As a result, his reinstatement appears to me to be mandatory under Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(1) (“If the court finds that the lawyer has complied with each of the criteria of paragraph E, ..., the court shall reinstate or readmit the lawyer and may issue written reasons.”) (emphasis added). This Court, of course, has plenary authority over legal disciplinary matters. See, e.g., In re Cortigene, 2013-2022 (La.2/14/14), 144 So.3d 915. In my view, by recognizing that the applicant fully acknowledged his wrongdoing, offered testimony of remorse, and complied with the Rule XIX, § 24(E) factors, that plenary authority is exercised in a manner consistent with the rules of this Court and the expectations of attorneys who are subject to discipline.  