Baseline Suspension for Lawyer Negligence, Communication Failures, and Fee Misconduct Established in In Re: Louviere

Introduction

In In Re: Drew M. Louviere, the Supreme Court of Louisiana addressed a disciplinary proceeding brought by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) against attorney Drew M. Louviere. The core issues were Mr. Louviere’s alleged neglect of a criminal appeal, failures in client communication, retention of unearned fees, and dishonesty. The complainant, Steve Derozal Williams (through his family), had retained Louviere for post‐conviction relief and appeal following a second‐degree murder conviction. After receiving $15,000 in fees, Louviere performed minimal work—filing a handful of motions but never perfecting the appeal or returning unearned fees. When formal charges were filed in August 2024, Louviere neither answered nor participated in the sanction phase, resulting in deemed admissions of the factual allegations.

Summary of the Judgment

On April 29, 2025, the Supreme Court of Louisiana issued a per curiam opinion suspending Drew M. Louviere from the practice of law for one year and one day. The Court adopted the hearing committee’s findings that Louviere had violated Rules 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.5(f) (fee refund), 3.2 (expediting litigation), and 8.4(a), (c) (dishonesty and deceit). The Court required Louviere to submit to fee dispute arbitration and to refund any unearned fees before applying for reinstatement. All costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding were assessed against him, with legal interest to begin thirty days after finality.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re: Lagarde (La. 10/1/24, 393 So. 3d 315): Suspension of one year and one day for neglect, communication failures, and improper withdrawal.
In re: Robertson (La. 11/28/17, 230 So. 3d 193): Suspension of one year and one day for neglect, incompetence, and failure to communicate.
In re: Banks (La. 10/2/09, 18 So. 3d 57): Court’s independent fact‐finding role and standard of proof by clear and convincing evidence.
In re: Donnan (La. 1/10/03, 838 So. 2d 715): Scope of deemed admissions under Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3).
Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis (513 So. 2d 1173) and Whittington (459 So. 2d 520): Framework for sanctions—protect public, preserve integrity, and deter misconduct.

Legal Reasoning

The Court found the factual allegations admitted due to Louviere’s failure to answer formal charges. Under Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3), admitted facts carry weight as clear and convincing evidence. The Court then applied the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions to determine the baseline sanction for negligent, dishonest, and uncommunicative conduct is suspension. Aggravating factors included Louviere’s prior disciplinary record, the vulnerability of the client, and his lengthy legal experience since 1982. No mitigating factors were present. Considering similar jurisprudence, the Court concluded that one year and one day suspension was appropriate and not excessive.

Impact

This decision cements that an attorney’s admitted neglect, poor communication, retention of unearned fees, and dishonesty warrant a baseline suspension of at least one year and one day. It underscores the consequences of defaulting on disciplinary charges and failing to participate in proceedings. The requirement of fee dispute arbitration before reinstatement provides a structured mechanism for partial fee recovery. Future disciplinary matters will reference In Re: Louviere when attorneys neglect appeals, ignore client inquiries, or withhold unearned fees.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Deemed Admitted: When an attorney fails to respond to formal charges, the allegations are accepted as true without additional proof.
Baseline Sanction: The starting point for discipline—in cases of neglect and dishonesty, suspension is the norm.
Aggravating Factors: Circumstances that justify a harsher penalty, such as prior misconduct or vulnerable clients.
Fee Dispute Arbitration: A neutral process for determining the portion of legal fees that an attorney has rightfully earned versus what must be refunded.
Clear and Convincing Evidence: A standard of proof requiring a firm belief in the truth of the allegations, higher than preponderance but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

In Re: Louviere reinforces the Louisiana Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding professional ethics by sanctioning attorneys who neglect their clients, fail to communicate, and retain unearned fees. The decision clarifies that admitted misconduct under Rule XIX triggers a suspension baseline, that aggravating factors intensify the sanction, and that fee dispute arbitration offers a fair path to client restitution. This precedent will guide future disciplinary inquiries, protect clients from attorney misconduct, and maintain the integrity of the legal profession in Louisiana.