January 2025 Discipline

Posted on by

These lawyers were the subject of Louisiana Supreme Court disciplinary orders of Louisiana Attorney Discipline Board recommendations published during the month of January 2025.

Louisiana Supreme Court

  1. James S. Burland. The Court granted the Petition for Interim Suspension filed by the ODC and suspended the respondent on an interim basis.
  2. Michael Thomas Joseph, Jr. The Court revoked the the respondent’s probation and imposed the deferred portion of the suspension previously ordered by the Court.
  3. Alvin B. Perkins, II. The Court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for six months, deferred in its entirety. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC had commended an investigation into allegations that the respondent mishandled his client trust account.
  4. Ivan J. Thompson. The Court accepted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for six months, deferred in its entirety. Prior to the filing for formal charges, the ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent mishandled his client trust account.
  5. Shane Austin Jordan. The Court granted the joint petition to transfer to active status and reinstated the respondent’s active status.
  6. Thomas Alvin McCormick. The Court granted the petition for interim suspension and suspended the respondent from the practice of law on an interim basis.
  7. Jonathan Gardere Carter. The Court granted the Joint Petition for Interim Suspension and suspended the respondent on an interim basis.

Louisiana Attorney Discipline Board

  1. Gregory James Sauzer. The board recommended that the Court suspend the respondent for six months, with all but thirty days deferred. The respondent willfully failed to file federal income tax returns for four consecutive years (2015-2018) and pleaded guilty to one count of failing to file federal income tax returns. In doing so, the respondent violated Rule 8.4(a), (b), and (c).
  2. David R. Opperman. The board recommended that the Court permanently disbar the respondent. The respondent was convicted of two counts of Indecent Behavior Involving Juveniles for committing lewd or lascivious acts with two minors (one 13 years old and another under 17 years old), for which he entered a nolo contendere plea to one count and a guilty plea to another, resulting in seven years imprisonment at hard labor with additional suspended sentences and probation periods. In doing so, he violated Rule 8.4(a) and 8.4(b).
  3. Robert William Hjortsberg. The board recommended that the Court suspend the respondent for six months, with all but two months (60 days) deferred. The respondent willfully failed to file federal income tax returns for 2017 and 2018 (pleading guilty to one misdemeanor count of failing to file for 2017), and in a separate matter, failed to participate in his client’s criminal trial after the client (Zarius Brown) absented himself during the proceedings, resulting in ineffective assistance of counsel and reversal of the client’s conviction. In doing so, he violated Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 1.3.

LADB Hearing Committees.

  1. Clayton Paul Schnyder, Jr. Hearing Committee # 63 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years. The respondent failed to maintain proper contact information with the Louisiana State Bar Association, knowingly failed to respond to and cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation, and misused his client trust account by writing checks to himself for personal expenses ($3,000 for “entertainment” and $3,000 for “renovations”), which constitutes commingling and/or conversion of funds. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(c), 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 8.1(b), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).
  2. Carl V. Williams. Hearing Committee # 56 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent failed to inform his client (Alvin Banks, Jr.) about the sale of property related to his father’s estate that occurred in 2017, withheld the client’s share of $7,514.11 from the proceeds, converted those funds to his personal use until 2022, failed to promptly disburse the funds to the client until after a complaint was filed with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and failed to cooperate with ODC’s investigation. In doing so, he violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(a), 1.15(d), 8.1(c), 8.4(c).
  3. Timothy A. Meche. Hearing Committee # 37 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 60 days, fully deferred. The respondent knowingly failed to cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s investigations by ignoring letters and notices from the ODC, refusing to respond to complaints filed against him, and deliberately avoiding service of subpoenas on multiple occasions, despite being aware that Supreme Court rules require personal service and that investigators were attempting to reach him. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d).
  4. Drew M. Louviere. Hearing Committee # 29 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent was paid $15,000 to represent a client (Steve Derozal Williams) at sentencing and in post-conviction proceedings, but failed to perfect the client’s appeal, did minimal work over a two-year period consisting of only four brief pleadings, misrepresented to the client’s family that he had requested the trial transcript when he had not, failed to communicate with the client despite numerous attempts to contact him, and failed to return the unearned fee. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(f), 3.2, 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).
  5. Christian Goudeau. Hearing Committee # 36 recommended that the respondent be disbarred. The respondent accepted a $10,000 retainer from Ms. Laderer to represent her in a custody matter involving her minor child’s father seeking international travel rights and passport authority, but failed to enroll as counsel, performed no work during the seven weeks before a critical court hearing, made numerous excuses for his inaction, failed to refund the unearned fee after termination, failed to return the client file, and failed to cooperate with the ODC’s investigation, constituting conversion of client funds. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.1(a), 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.4(b), 1.5(f)(5), 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.1(b), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
Please follow and like us:
Tweet