Legal Opinion
In re Cortigene
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Decided February 14, 2014No. Nos. 2013-B-2022, 2013-B-2172PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
2Per curiam
11 These consolidated disciplinary proceedings arise from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondents, Seth Corti-gene and Newton B. Schwartz, Sr. Mr. Cortigene is an attorney licensed to practice law in the States of Texas and Louisiana, but currently ineligible to practice in Louisiana due to his failure to comply with *917his professional obligations.1 Mr. Schwartz is licensed to practice law only in Texas and Pennsylvania; however, the ODC asserts jurisdiction over him in this matter pursuant to Supreme Court Rule…
3Cases cited18 opinions
- In Re CaulfieldSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1996
- In Re PardueSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1994
- In Re BanksSupreme Court of Louisiana · 2009
- Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1979
- Meunier v. BernichLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1936
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by5 opinions
- Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Kevin E. McCloskeyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2016
- In re NguyenSupreme Court of Louisiana · 2017
- In re UngarSupreme Court of Louisiana · 2016
- Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Kevin E. McCloskeyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2016
- People v. AuerSupreme Court of Colorado · 2014