September 2025 Discipline

Posted on by

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

Louisiana Supreme Court

  1. Christopher Anthony Tyson. The Court imposed reciprocal discipline based on an order of the Supreme Court of Georgia suspending the respondent for two years, with reinstatement conditioned on restitution of $872.53 to his former client. The Georgia proceeding involved respondent’s mishandling of $6,300 in settlement funds, failure to notify or pay a medical provider with an interest in the settlement, and use of client-trust funds for personal expenses. In doing so, he violated Georgia Rules 1.15 (I)(a)–(c) and (II)(b).
  2. Salvador Randazzo. The Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for three years, with eighteen months deferred. Respondent, while a litigant in civil proceedings, made repeated ex parte and inappropriate statements to a district judge and his staff, and filed pleadings containing false or reckless accusations impugning the integrity of judges at all levels of the Louisiana courts. He failed to appear at his disciplinary hearing. In doing so, respondent violated Rules 3.5(a), 3.5(b), 8.2(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d), as well as Supreme Court Rule VII §7 and General Administrative Rule Part G §11. Justice Crain dissented, finding the sanction too lenient.
  3. Sandra James Page. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for ninety days, with all but thirty days deferred, followed by a one-year period of probation. Respondent made statements concerning the integrity of two judges with reckless disregard for the truth and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Justice Crain dissented, finding the sanction too lenient.
  4. Laura T. Marler. The Court granted the petition for permanent resignation from the practice of law in lieu of discipline. Respondent had been under investigation for misconduct arising from her arrest on drug-possession charges and was previously placed on interim suspension.
  5. Ronald Sidney Haley, Jr. The Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. While already on interim suspension, respondent engaged in multiple acts of misconduct, including neglecting criminal matters, misrepresenting case status to clients, and practicing law while suspended. The violations arose from the Beasley, Scott, Edwards, and Clayton matters. In doing so, he violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 3.4(c), 5.5(a), 8.1(a), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
  6. Tristan Patrick Gilley. The Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. Respondent failed to communicate with a criminal defense client, failed to return the client’s file upon request, and failed to cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation. Respondent was previously suspended for similar misconduct in 2023 and had not sought reinstatement. In doing so, he violated Rules 1.4, 1.16(d), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).
  7. Christopher Hicks Carbine. The Court dismissed the formal charges after finding only a minor “technical violation” of Rules 1.1 and 1.4(a)(3). The Court cautioned respondent to refrain from similar professional lapses in the future but declined to impose formal discipline.
  8. Jade Blasingame. he Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and disbarred the respondent, retroactive to January 21, 2016, the date of her interim suspension. Prior to formal charges, respondent admitted converting client and third-party funds, pleading guilty to theft and issuing worthless checks, and entering into a prohibited business transaction with a client. She violated Rules 1.8(a), 1.15(a), 1.15(d), 1.15(f), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c).
  9. David Band, Jr. The Court granted the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s recommendation to terminate the respondent’s conditional reinstatement, finding he had successfully complied with all terms of probation.
  10. John C. Saunders, Jr. The Court granted the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s petition and transferred the respondent to disability inactive status pursuant to Rule XIX § 22(D).
  11. Chester J. Rothkamm, Jr. The Court revoked respondent’s probation and made immediately executory the previously deferred one-year-and-one-day suspension imposed in In re: Rothkamm, 23-0513 (La. 5/23/23). Respondent stipulated to violating his probation conditions.
  12. Benjamin John Barrow Klein. The Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. Respondent neglected several client collection matters, failed to communicate with his client, and failed to cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation. In doing so, he violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(b), 8.1(c), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
  13. Michael Lynn Harris. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline and suspended the respondent for one year and one day, with all but six months deferred, followed by two years of unsupervised probation. Respondent admitted misconduct arising from his arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol, violating Rule 8.4(b).
  14. Stacey L. Thomas. The Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day. Respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC, failed to maintain accurate registration information, and remained suspended from prior discipline. In doing so, she violated Rules 1.1(c) and 8.1(c).
  15. Luke Joseph Thibodeaux, II. The Court granted conditional reinstatement to the practice of law subject to respondent’s continued compliance with his JLAP contract and periodic reporting to the ODC regarding his tax obligations. Chief Justice Weimer, Justice Crain, and Justice McCallum dissented.
  16. Joseph M. Sullivan, Jr. The Court granted the ODC’s Petition to Transfer the Respondent to Disability Inactive.
  17. Eric Edward Malveau. 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, followed by one year of probation conditioned on completion of Ethics School. Respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, engaged in a conflict of interest, and failed to properly terminate representation.
  18. Gerald V. Dandeneau. The Court granted the joint petition for consent discipline. Respondent, licensed only in New York, appeared in Louisiana court without pro hac vice admission. He was enjoined for one year and one day from seeking admission to practice in Louisiana, having violated Rules 5.5(a) and 8.4(d).

LADB Hearing Committees.

  1. Glenn M. Constantino, Jr. Glenn M. Constantino Jr. Hearing Committee #40 recommended that the respondent be reinstated to the practice of law. Constantino was suspended in 1997 after self-reporting trust-account violations involving about $58,000, attributed to a compulsive gambling disorder. At the reinstatement hearing, witnesses including two abbots, several lawyers, and JLAP evaluator Dr. Heather Kleckinger testified that he has maintained abstinence since 1996, demonstrated honesty and integrity, and fully satisfied all reinstatement criteria under Rule XIX §24(E). The committee unanimously recommended reinstatement and assessment of costs.
  2. Kevin Douglas McCleary. Hearing Committee #1 recommended that the respondent be readmitted to the practice of law subject to conditions. McCleary was disbarred in 2018, retroactive to his 2015 interim suspension, after converting over $55,000 from First American Title Insurance. At the readmission hearing, JLAP staff, counselors, and supervisors testified that he has maintained sobriety since 2015, fully complied with his JLAP contract, and completed intensive treatment for substance use and sexual compulsivity disorders. The committee credited evidence of sustained abstinence and ongoing therapy, finding that McCleary had satisfied all criteria for reinstatement under Rule XIX §24(E). It recommended readmission conditioned on continued JLAP monitoring, therapy, restitution efforts to First American Title, supervised practice, and total abstinence from alcohol and drugs.
  3. Lindsey J. Leave. Hearing Committee #50 recommended that the respondent be disbarred. While already suspended for neglect and fee-splitting misconduct, Leavoy engaged in additional misconduct in June 2024 by using his trust account to kite checks totaling over $111,000, converting client and third-party funds, and using trust money for personal expenses such as vehicle purchases. He failed to cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and ignored all communications. The committee found that he knowingly engaged in dishonest and criminal conduct involving check-kiting and potential conversion, violating Rules 1.15(a)–(b), 8.1(b)–(c), 8.4(a)–(c), and La. Sup. Ct. Rule XIX §28(A)(2), and concluded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction.
  4. Jonathan Curry Harris. Hearing Committee #28 recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. Harris represented Dewey and Mildred Johnson in a civil matter and failed to file a required pretrial order, resulting in his clients being barred from presenting evidence at trial. He then failed to inform them of his error. Harris also drafted letters for his client to send directly to an opposing party who was represented by counsel, failed to cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation until subpoenaed, and ignored requests for supplemental responses. The committee found that he acted knowingly, caused actual harm to his clients, and had prior discipline for similar neglect and noncooperation. In doing so, he violated Rules 1.1(a), 1.3, 1.4(a)–(b), 4.2(a), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).
Please follow and like us:
Tweet