The Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in In re Trina Trinhthi Chu offers an important clarification of Rule 8.4(d) of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct. See In re Trina Chu, 2024-B-00479 (La. 12/13/2024). This rule prohibits conduct that is “prejudicial to the administration of justice.” What makes this case stand out is that the court found Ms. Chu violated Rule 8.4(d) even though there was no evidence that she intended to cause harm. The key takeaway? Under this rule, it’s the effect of an attorney’s actions that matters—not their intent.
Rule 8.4(d) as a “Result-Based” Rule
By treating Rule 8.4(d) as a “result-based” rule, the court took a different approach than what we typically see in lawyer discipline cases, which often focus on intent. The court ruled that Ms. Chu’s actions—disclosing confidential court documents and assisting a litigant—were inherently harmful to the administration of justice, regardless of whether she meant to cause harm. This decision aligns with broader legal principles that distinguish between conduct (what someone does), results (the impact of their actions), and circumstances (the conditions surrounding the act).
The Focus on Impact Over Intent
Legal analysis has long distinguished between an individual’s actions, the resulting consequences, and the surrounding circumstances when evaluating culpability. This framework emphasizes that an action is not assessed in isolation—it is also judged by its effects. The recent disciplinary ruling follows this reasoning, reinforcing that under Rule 8.4(d), the primary concern is whether the justice system was harmed, rather than whether the attorney intended to cause harm.
What This Means for Lawyers
This interpretation raises an important question: Can an attorney be disciplined solely based on the impact of their actions, even if they didn’t mean to cause harm? According to this ruling, the answer is yes. Ms. Chu’s conduct led to significant disruption—the recusal of all Second Circuit judges and the transfer of a case—so the court prioritized the stability of the justice system over her intent.
The court’s approach is similar to how the law treats offenses like vehicular homicide, where the focus is on the outcome (a death), not whether the driver intended to cause harm. In Ms. Chu’s case, the result—disrupting the judicial process—was enough to violate Rule 8.4(d). This is different from many other ethical violations, which typically require some level of intent or bad faith.
The Bottom Line
The Chu case highlights an evolving approach to attorney discipline. By focusing on the impact of an attorney’s actions rather than their intent, the Louisiana Supreme Court has broadened the scope of potential professional misconduct. Lawyers should take note: even well-meaning actions can lead to discipline if they disrupt the administration of justice. This ruling is a reminder to always consider the possible consequences of our actions—because in some cases, intent simply doesn’t matter.
