XIX § 10 Sanctions.

A. Types of Sanctions. Misconduct shall be grounds for one or more of the following sanctions:

(1) Disbarment by the court. In any order or judgment of the court in which a lawyer is disbarred, the court retains the discretion to permanently disbar the lawyer and permanently prohibit any such lawyer from being readmitted to the practice of law. However, the court shall only impose permanent disbarment upon an express finding of the presence of the following factors: (1) the lawyer’s misconduct is so egregious as to demonstrate a convincing lack of ethical and moral fitness to practice law; and (2) there is no reasonable expectation of significant rehabilitation in the lawyer’s character in the future. See also Appendix D, Guidelines Depicting Conduct Which Might Warrant Permanent Disbarment, Suggested by The Committee to Study Permanent Disbarment; Commentary of the Court to accompany Order dated July 19, 2001 amending Rule XIX; and Commentary of the Court to accompany Order dated May 4, 2022. [amended effective May 4, 2022]

(2) Suspension by the court for an appropriate fixed period of time not in excess of three years.

(3) Probation imposed by the court not in excess of two years, or imposed by the board on motion of disciplinary counsel with the consent of the respondent not in excess of two years; provided, however, that probation may be renewed for an additional two year period by consent or after a hearing to determine if there is a continued need for supervision. A probationary period may be imposed for the duration of any Judge’s and Lawyer’s Assistance Program monitoring agreement. If the respondent objects to the board’s imposition of probation, the misconduct must either be made the subject of formal charges or a recommendation that probation be imposed must be filed with the court. The conditions of probation should be stated in writing. Probation shall be used only in cases where there is little likelihood that the respondent will harm the public during the period of rehabilitation and the conditions of probation can be adequately supervised.

(4) Reprimand by the court or the board. A reprimand shall be in writing and either imposed in person or served upon the respondent by certified mail. A reprimand imposed by the court or board shall be published in the journal of the state bar and in a newspaper of general circulation in each judicial district in which the lawyer maintained an office for the practice of law.

(5) Admonition by the board imposed with the consent of the respondent and the approval of the chair of a hearing committee. An admonition cannot be imposed after formal charges have been issued. Admonitions shall be in writing and served upon the respondent. They constitute private discipline since they are imposed before the filing of formal charges. Only in cases of minor misconduct, when there is little or no injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession, and when there is little likelihood of repetition by the lawyer, should an admonition be imposed. A summary of the conduct for which an admonition was imposed may be published in a bar publication for the education of the profession, but the lawyer shall not be identified. An admonition may be used in subsequent proceedings in which the respondent has been found guilty of misconduct as evidence of prior misconduct bearing upon the issue of the sanction to be imposed in the subsequent proceeding.

(6) Pro bono legal services or other similar community services. With the consent of the respondent, a condition requiring the performance of a fixed number of hours of pro bono legal services or other similar community services may be included in connection with an order of diversion, admonition, reprimand, or a fully or partially deferred suspension, coupled with probation, which does not exceed one year and one day. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel and the Board Administrator shall adopt rules governing the pro bono/community service program, including, but not limited to, providing for the monitoring of the lawyers in the program, and shall maintain a list of the organizations which are approved to participate in the program.

(7) Upon order of the court or the board, or upon stipulation, restitution to persons financially injured.

(8) Limitation by the court on the nature or extent of the respondent’s future practice.

B. Conditions. Written conditions may be attached to an admonition or a reprimand. Failure to comply with such conditions shall be grounds for reconsideration of the matter and prosecution of formal charges against the respondent.

C. Factors to be Considered in Imposing Sanctions. In imposing a sanction after a finding of lawyer misconduct, the court or board shall consider the following factors:

(1) whether the lawyer has violated a duty owed to a client, to the public, to the legal system, or to the profession;

(2) whether the lawyer acted intentionally, knowingly, or negligently;

(3) the amount of the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and

(4) the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors.

D. Public Nature or Sanctions. Disposition of lawyer discipline shall be public in cases of disbarment, suspension, probation, and reprimand. In all cases of public discipline by the court, the court shall issue written reasons.

Commentary of the Court to accompany Order dated July 19, 2001 amending Rule XIX

In the public interest, the Court has amended Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XIX to codify Permanent Disbarment as an available sanction for attorney misconduct. While the Court has always had the discretion to deny an application for readmission after the requisite five (5)-year waiting period after disbarment, an attorney who is permanently disbarred under these circumstances will be prohibited from applying for readmission to the bar. The amendments reflect the judgement of the Court that in some instances lawyer misconduct may be so egregious as to warrant a sanction of permanent disbarment based on the facts of an individual case and in consideration of the guidelines set forth in Appendix D to the Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. The amendments are substantially similar to the recommendations of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the House of Delegates of the Louisiana State Bar Association.

In adopting these amendments to Rule XIX, the Court has carefully considered the differences between the sanctions of disbarment and suspension, which differences are both substantive and significant. A suspended lawyer remains a lawyer during the period of suspension, retains a license to practice, but cannot practice law during the term of the suspension. However, one who has been disbarred loses his license to practice law. A suspension is imposed for a limited time, currently a maximum of three (3) years. An attorney who has been disbarred but not declared to be "permanently" disbarred under these amendments may apply for readmission after a period of five (5) years. The granting of readmission is within the sole discretion of the Court and is based upon the strict criteria enumerated in Rule XIX, Section 24(E). Unless such readmission is petitioned for and is granted, a disbarment is effectively permanent.

The amendments we now adopt recognize that there are some types of misconduct that are so serious that where the sanction of disbarment is imposed, an application for readmission will not be considered.

________________

KIMBALL, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part

I concur in part and dissent in part from this court's Order, dated July 19, 2001, which amends the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement to provide for permanent disbarment. Prior to this amendment, there was no provision in the Rules allowing this court to permanently disbar an attorney. Rather, a "disbarred" lawyer could petition the court for readmission to the practice of law after five years. The amendment retains this procedure, but allows the court, in its discretion, to effectively override this provision and impose "permanent disbarment," whereby an attorney is permanently prohibited from being readmitted to the practice of law. While I commend the majority for initiating a type of disbarment that is permanent in nature, in my view, the Rules should not provide for different categories of disbarment.

Although the sanction of disbarment under the Rules has always provided that an attorney can be readmitted after five years, the term "disbarment" imparts a notion of permanency to the public and leads the public to believe that such sanction is permanently imposed. I believe that "disbarment" with the option for readmittance in five years is essentially a suspension and, therefore, misleads the public as to the ramifications of the sanction. The current rule still obfuscates the reality that attorneys who are "disbarred" will none-the-less be able to apply for readmission in five years. In my opinion, the public would be better served if this court were to increase the time an attorney guilty of misconduct may be suspended[fn1] and provide that all disbarments are permanent. I believe that suspension should be used in those cases where it is believed an attorney may be successfully rehabilitated and able to resume the practice of law, and I would reserve the sanction of disbarment, which by its very terms conveys an idea of permanency, for situations involving the most egregious misconduct.

[fn1]Currently, the court may fix a period of suspension not in excess of three years as a sanction for misconduct. Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10(A)(2).

Commentary of the Court to Accompany Order Dated May 4, 2022 Amending Rule XIX

The amendments to Supreme Court Rule XIX, Section 10(A)(1) do not represent a substantive change to the rules applicable to permanent disbarment, but instead serve to codify factors which have long been recognized by the court’s jurisprudence. See, e.g., In re Abel, 2019-1420 (La. 11/19/19), 307 So. 3d 165, 174 (explaining permanent disbarment was appropriate because “the misconduct set forth in the formal charges clearly demonstrates that respondent lacks the fitness to engage in the practice of law in this state” and “[i]n the face of this indisputable evidence of a fundamental lack of moral character and fitness, we can conceive of no circumstance under which we would ever grant readmission to respondent.”). By explicitly codifying these factors, the amendments will provide improved guidance to the parties, hearing committees and disciplinary board. It should be noted these factors are not intended to displace the discretionary guidelines found in Appendix D, Guidelines Depicting Conduct Which Might Warrant Permanent Disbarment, but instead serve as overarching considerations in determining whether imposition of permanent disbarment is warranted.

Commentary of the Court to Accompany Order Dated August 27, 2026 Amending Rule XIX

The amendment to Supreme Court Rule XIX, Section 10(A)(6) creates the option of pro bono or community service as a condition in cases of relatively minor misconduct. In doing so, the court strongly dispels any suggestion that pro bono legal service should be considered punitive in nature. Rather, when used in this context, the imposition of a service condition allows the lawyer to acknowledge his or her misconduct by making a positive contribution to underserved persons in the community.

The term “pro bono/community service” is not defined in the rule in order to preserve maximum flexibility in individual cases. Such service may include actual legal representation through an indigent defender board or legal services bureau or may include providing support services to such agencies. In general, the service requirement should be tailored to the lawyer’s professional skills to ensure maximum benefit to the community.

The rule expressly provides the condition may be imposed only with the consent of the lawyer. This provision is added to prevent any potential conflict which might arise if the lawyer is forced to engage in an involuntary representation. Typically, the condition should be imposed in conjunction with consent disciplinary proceedings in which the lawyer stipulates to a proposed sanction. However, it may be imposed in non-consent proceedings if the lawyer is given the option of accepting a service condition in lieu of other discipline.

The rule directs the disciplinary board to adopt procedures governing the service program, including monitoring the lawyer’s participation and completion of the required number of hours. The board shall also maintain a list of approved organizations. Inclusion of an organization on the approved list shall not constitute an endorsement of that organization but shall only signify it meets the requirements to participate in the service program. In order to be included on the approved list, the organization must agree to hold the disciplinary system harmless from any claims which may arise as a result of its participation in the program.