APPLICATION FOR READMISSION
proceeding arises out of an application for readmission to
the practice of law filed by petitioner, Arthur Gilmore, Jr.,
a disbarred attorney.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2013, petitioner was convicted of a federal racketeering
charge. The conviction stemmed from petitioner's
acceptance of bribes in exchange for taking favorable actions
on behalf of individuals and organizations having business
before the Monroe City Council, of which he was an elected
petitioner's conviction, we placed him on interim
suspension. In re: Gilmore, 13-1284 (La.
6/19/13), 117 So.3d 500. On September 26, 2013, petitioner was
sentenced to serve twenty-four months in federal prison. This
sentence was below the sentencing guidelines range, and the
judge gave the following reasons for the downward departure:
In this case, the Government's main witness engaged in an
ongoing program of planned enticement to provoke [petitioner]
into agreeing to bribes in exchange for perceived favors from
[petitioner's] position with the Monroe City Council.
Because of that, the Guidelines, in my opinion, may overstate
the relative seriousness of [petitioner's] actions and
the application of an equitable sentence.
So I find there exists a mitigating circumstance of a kind
not adequately taken into consideration by the Guidelines and
that in order to advance the objective set forth under the
Guidelines, the sentence will be different from that
November 13, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit affirmed petitioner's racketeering
conviction. United States v. Gilmore, No. 13-31064
(5th Cir. 2014) (not designated for publication).
2015, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC")
filed formal charges against petitioner based on his
conviction of a crime. After considering the formal charges,
we disbarred petitioner, retroactive to June 9, 2013, the
date of his most recent interim suspension; additionally, we
gave petitioner credit for the time he served on interim
suspension during the period of June 19, 2011 to September
21, 2011 and during the period of May 2, 2012 to April 3,
2013. In re: Gilmore, 16-0967 (La. 10/19/16), 218
January 2, 2018, petitioner filed the instant application for
readmission to the practice of law in Louisiana, asserting
that he has complied with the readmission criteria set forth
in Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(E). On April 12, 2018,
the ODC filed its objection to petitioner's application
for readmission. The matter was then referred for a formal
hearing before a hearing committee.
the hearing, the hearing committee recommended that
petitioner be readmitted to the practice of law, subject to
certain conditions. Both petitioner and the ODC objected to
the committee's recommendation. Therefore, pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(H)(2), the matter was
reviewed by the disciplinary board. After review, the board
recommended petitioner be readmitted to the practice of law,
subject to a three-year period of probation with certain
conditions. Three board members dissented, recommending
readmission be denied. The ODC objected to the board's
considering the record in its entirety, we find petitioner
has met his burden of proving that he is entitled to be
readmitted to the practice of law on a conditional basis.
Accordingly, we will order that petitioner be readmitted to
the practice of law, ...