
    In re Ramsey T. MARCELLO.
    No. 2010-OB-0528.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 7, 2010.
    Order Denying Reconsideration April 28, 2010.
   JjON APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the evidence and considering the law, we conclude petitioner, Ramsey T. Marcello, is eligible to be conditionally admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to the following conditions:

1. The term of this conditional admission shall be for one year from the date of admission.

2. During the period of this conditional admission, petitioner shall be monitored by the Lawyers Assistance Program (LAP).

3. Petitioner shall be responsible for ensuring that monthly reports of his progress and participation in LAP are forwarded to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

4. Within forty-five days prior to the expiration of the conditional admission, the Executive Director of LAP shall forward to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (a) a final report of petitioner’s progress and participation in LAP, and (b) a recommendation regarding the need for petitioner’s continued participation in LAP.

5. Within thirty days prior to the expiration of the conditional admission, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel shall file a report in this court in which it shall recommend whether the conditional admission shall be allowed to terminate or shall be extended.

|26. Petitioner shall cooperate with LAP and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and shall comply with any and all requirements imposed upon him by LAP and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Should petitioner fail to make a good faith effort to satisfy these conditions, or should he commit any misconduct during the period of probation, his conditional right to practice may be terminated or he may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

CONDITIONAL ADMISSION GRANTED.

KNOLL and WEIMER, JJ„ dissent with reasons.

KNOLL, J.,

dissenting.

| iWith all due respect, I dissent from the majority imposing upon respondent a conditional admission to the practice of law, subject to a one-year period of monitoring by LAP. After submitting to substance abuse evaluation by two doctors who are professionals in the field of substance abuse, respondent was determined not to be an alcoholic and does not have a substance abuse problem. In my view, petitioner should be admitted to the practice of law without conditions. Conditional admission with a period of monitoring by LAP should be reserved for those who have been diagnosed with alcohol and/or drug problems.

WEIMER, J.,

dissenting in part.

|,I would conditionally admit the applicant, but would not require monitoring by the Lawyers Assistance Program because, according to the two doctors who evaluated him, there is no evidence the applicant has an alcohol or substance abuse dependence.

ON APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

11 Reconsideration denied.

KNOLL, J., dissents for the reasons assigned on original consideration.

WEIMER, J., dissents with reasons.

GUIDRY, J., concurs with reasons.

KNOLL, Justice,

dissenting.

|,I dissent for the reasons assigned on original consideration.

WEIMER, J.,

dissenting.

|,I dissent for the reasons recited in my previous dissent in part.

GUIDRY, Justice,

concurs with reasons.

|,Pursuant to the clear and unambiguous language of our April 7, 2010 judgment, petitioner is required to “comply with any and all requirements imposed upon him” by the Lawyers Assistance Program. 
      
       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.
     