June 2025 Discipline

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

Louisiana Supreme Court

1. Kevin Michael Steel. The Court permanently disbarred the respondent and permanently prohibited him from being readmitted to the practice of law. The respondent had a prior disciplinary history dating back to 2004, including an admonition for neglecting a legal matter and failing to communicate with a client, and a 2015 suspension (fully deferred) for similar conduct. In three consolidated matters spanning from 2015 to 2018, the respondent engaged in extensive misconduct including neglecting legal matters, failing to communicate with multiple clients, failing to refund unearned fees totaling approximately $45,000, borrowing money from clients, converting client and third-party funds, making false statements to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigations. The respondent victimized multiple clients and third parties. The Court found the respondent’s misconduct was so egregious as to demonstrate a convincing lack of ethical and moral fitness to practice law, with no reasonable expectation of significant rehabilitation. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.5(f)(5), 1.8(a), 1.8(k), 1.15(d), 8.1(a), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
2. Lindsey J. Leavoy. The Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for twelve months, with all but six months deferred, followed by a one-year period of probation. In 2015, Cornelius Jackson hired attorney Leslie R. Leavoy, Jr. (respondent’s brother) to handle a personal injury claim on a contingency fee basis without a written agreement. Leslie Leavoy subsequently associated the respondent as co-counsel without obtaining Mr. Jackson’s written consent to the representation or advising him in writing of the fee-sharing arrangement between the attorneys. While the respondent initially participated in the case by meeting with healthcare providers, taking a deposition, and participating in an unsuccessful mediation in 2020, he failed to file a motion to set the case for trial and little to nothing was done after the mediation. The respondent suffered a heart attack in June 2022 and underwent surgery the following year. In February 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on grounds of abandonment, which the trial court granted in March 2024, causing actual harm to Mr. Jackson whose case had value. The respondent failed to communicate with Mr. Jackson for years and showed complete lack of cooperation with the ODC investigation. The suspension was made retroactive to August 7, 2024, the date of respondent’s interim suspension. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(c), and 1.5(e).
3. Leslie R. Leavoy, Jr. The Court granted the petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year, deferred in its entirety. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent neglected a legal matter, resulting in abandonment of the client’s matter, failed to communicate with his client, failed to produce a written contingency fee agreement, and failed to obtain his client’s consent to associate and share legal fee’s with another lawyer.
4. Leonard Knox Fisher, III. The Court granted the petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, with all but ninety days deferred. The respondent and ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline in which the respondent admitted that his conduct violated Rule 1.15(a).
5. David Belfield, III. The Louisiana Supreme Court remanded the matter to the disciplinary board for further proceedings. The Court considered the report and recommendation of the hearing committee but ordered that the matter be remanded for further review by the disciplinary board pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G).
6. Jan Peter Christiansen. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for a period of ninth days, deferred in its entirety. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with a client. Respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline in which respondent admitted that his conduct violated Rules 1.7(a)(2), 1.16(a)(1), 2.1, and 8.4(d)
7. Daryl Andre Gray. The Court granted the petition to initiate reciprocal discipline proceedings filed by the ODC and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for six months, with two months active and the remainder to be served on probation.
8. Zachary Ryan Christiansen. The court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and disbarred the respondent. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent committed theft of law firm funds, failed to diligently represent several clients, and made material misrepresentations to the clients regarding the status of their legal matters.
9. Anton Martynenko. The Court granted the joint petition to transfer the respondent to disability inactive status.
10. Wesley James Galjour. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and publicly reprimanded the respondent. The ODC had commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in connection with the filing of an incorrect affidavit in a child custody case. The parties stipulated that respondent’s conduct violated Rule 8.4(d) but that his actions caused no significant harm.
11. Samuel Charles Ward, Jr. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for a period of eighteen months, deferred in its entirety. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent practiced law while ineligible to do so and illegally purchased controlled substances.
12. Jeffery D. Sampson. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for a period of one year and one day, deferred in its entirety. Prior to the filing of the consent discipline, the Court had commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent was arrested and charged with drug-related offenses.
13. Marc R. Michaud. The Court granted the joint motion to extend probation and extended the probation period by six months.
14. Maurice D. Hall. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for six months, to be deferred in its entirety. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent neglected a legal matter and failed to communicate with his clients.
15. Donald R. Dobbins. The Court granted the petitioner’s petition for reinstatement.
16. Jonathan Gardere Carter. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, with all but six months deferred. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to expediate litigations, failed to promptly return unearned fees, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation.
17. Kervin W. Doyle. The Court granted a joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day, deferred in its entirety. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent mishandled his client trust around.
18. Steven E. Adams. The Court granted the petition for interim suspension.
19. Richard D. Leibowitz. The Court granted the petition for permanent resignation from the practice of law in lieu of discipline.
20. Frank G. DeSalvo. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for six months, deferred in its entirety. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that the respondent mishandled his client trust account.
21. Tiffany Gosselin Moore. The Court granted the joint petition for transfer to disability inactive status.
22. Paul Arenz Lemke, III. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended there respondent for one year and one day, with all but six months of the suspension deferred. The ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent knowingly made false statements of fact to a tribunal, improperly notarized affidavits, instructed his staff to falsely witness affidavits, engaged in dishonest conduct, and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Respondent and the ODC then submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which the parties stipulated that respondent’s conduct violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
23. Byron C. Williams. The Court granted the petitioner’s petition for reinstatement.
24. Jonas Mark Robinson. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day, with all but thirty days deferred. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent mishandled his client trust account and practiced law while ineligible to do so.
25. Shane Austin Jordan. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day, deferred in its entirety. Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Prior to the filing of formal charges, the ODC and the respondent stipulated that respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(b).
26. Dalonshia Shunette Thomas. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for six months, deferred in its entirety. Respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline in which respondent admitted that her conduct violated Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.15(d), and 1.15(f)
27. Michael L. Cave. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for three years. The respondent admitted his conduct violated Rule 8.4(d).

LADB Hearing Committees.

1. Luke Thibodeaux. Hearing Committee #22 recommended that the respondent be reinstated to the practice of law. The respondent was suspended for one year and one day beginning January 14, 2022, and initially petitioned for reinstatement while still owing $3,700 in court-ordered restitution to two former clients. His first petition was denied due to that outstanding obligation and lack of evidence of rehabilitation. In a supplemental petition, the respondent demonstrated that he had now paid the restitution in full and provided updated information establishing his compliance with all conditions of reinstatement. The committee found that the respondent met the criteria under Rule XIX, §24(E), including rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards of the profession. Accordingly, the committee recommended that the respondent be reinstated.
2. Stacey L. Thomas. Hearing Committee #10 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. While serving as appointed counsel in a child custody matter, the respondent failed to communicate with her client or attend multiple scheduled court hearings. As a result, the client’s custody motion was dismissed, and the respondent was removed as counsel by the court. The respondent also failed to respond to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation, despite multiple notices and extensions. The Committee found that the respondent acted knowingly and displayed a pattern of neglect and noncommunication. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a) and (d).
3. Benjamin John Klein. Hearing Committee #29 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. The respondent was retained in 2019 to handle three separate debt collection matters but failed to diligently prosecute the cases or maintain communication with his client, despite receiving $6,000 in retainers. Two of the cases were ultimately abandoned. After the client filed a complaint in August 2023, the respondent failed to meaningfully respond to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s repeated inquiries and only appeared for a sworn statement after being subpoenaed. During that testimony, the respondent acknowledged allowing the cases to be abandoned, failing to inform the client, and taking no remedial action. He also failed to follow through on ODC’s directives to notify the client of potential malpractice. The committee found that the respondent knowingly and intentionally violated multiple duties and acted to avoid liability for his misconduct. In doing so, the respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(b), 8.1(c), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).