Permanent Disbarment for Repeated Misconduct and Lack of Rehabilitation

Introduction

In In Re: Kevin Michael Steel, 2025-SC-LA-B-01471, the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed consolidated disciplinary proceedings brought by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against attorney Kevin Michael Steel. Steel, admitted in 1999 and previously disciplined in 2004 and 2015, faced three sets of formal charges—dockets 17-DB-018, 18-DB-056, and 19-DB-077—alleging client neglect, failure to refund unearned fees, dishonesty, conversion of client and third-party funds, false statements in investigations, and refusal to cooperate with the ODC. The central issues were whether Steel’s conduct justified disbarment, and whether the Court should impose “permanent disbarment” (i.e., bar him permanently from readmission) rather than a conventional suspension or allow his petition for permanent resignation instead of discipline.

Summary of the Judgment

Acting per curiam, the Court found that all factual allegations were deemed admitted for Steel’s failure to answer or participate meaningfully. The ODC proved by clear and convincing evidence that Steel:

• Neglected legal matters and failed to communicate with multiple clients;
• Kept and converted at least $45,000 in client or third-party funds;
• Made false statements to the ODC about refunds and case filings;
• Failed to cooperate with lawful subpoenas and disciplinary proceedings.

Given his extensive prior disciplinary history, pattern of repeated offenses, intentional deceit, and indifference to restitution, the Court held that the baseline sanction of disbarment applied and that Steel’s misconduct was so egregious, with no reasonable prospect of rehabilitation, as to warrant permanent disbarment under Rule XIX § 10(A)(1) and Appendix D guidelines. Steel’s petition for permanent resignation in lieu of discipline was denied as moot. The Court ordered restitution payments totaling $46,805 and prohibited Steel from ever being readmitted to the Louisiana bar.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• In re: Steel, 14-2367 (La. 1/16/15), 155 So. 3d 513 – Steel’s prior deferred suspension for neglect and communication failures.
• In re: Steel, 24-0481 (La. 4/24/24), 383 So. 3d 909 – Reinstatement to active status followed by interim suspension for threat to public.
• In re: Banks, 09-1212 (La. 10/2/09), 18 So. 3d 57 – Standard that Court acts as trier of fact in disciplinary matters and reviews violations de novo.
• In re: Donnan, 01-3058 (La. 1/10/03), 838 So. 2d 715 – Clarification that deemed-admitted facts relieve the ODC of further proof but legal conclusions may require evidence.
• In re: Favors, 06-1339 (La. 9/29/06), 938 So. 2d 677 – Attorney permanently disbarred for repeated conversion of funds and dishonesty.
• American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions – Baseline sanctions and aggravating/mitigating factors framework.
• Supreme Court Rule XIX §§ 10, 11, 20.1 and Appendix D – Procedural and substantive guidelines for discipline and permanent disbarment.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis unfolded in two steps:

1. Establishing Misconduct: Under Rule XIX § 11(E)(3), Steel’s non-response to formal charges deemed all factual assertions admitted. Those facts—client neglect, conversion of sizeable sums, false statements to the ODC, obstruction of investigations—satisfied violations of Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(5), 1.8(k), 1.15(d), 8.1(a)/(c), 8.4(a)/(c)/(d), and 1.18(a).
2. Determining Sanction:
   • Baseline: ABA Standards and prior jurisprudence place Steel’s misconduct at the level requiring disbarment.
   • Aggravating Factors: Prior discipline, dishonest motive, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad-faith obstruction, false statements, substantial experience, indifference to restitution.
   • Mitigating Factors: None identified.
   • Permanent Disbarment Criteria: Rule XIX § 10(A)(1) requires (1) egregious misconduct showing lack of moral fitness and (2) no reasonable expectation of rehabilitation. Steel’s repeated, intentional misdeeds after prior discipline—and his continued non-cooperation—satisfied both criteria.

Impact

This decision reinforces Louisiana’s disciplinary regime by:

• Emphasizing that repeated, intentional misappropriation of client or third-party funds—even after prior discipline—will lead to permanent removal from the bar.
• Clarifying the application of permanent disbarment guidelines (Appendix D) and the Court’s discretion to bar reinstatement when rehabilitation is unlikely.
• Deterring attorneys from obstructing investigations or making false statements to disciplinary authorities.
• Guiding disciplinary boards and hearing committees on the weight to give aggravating factors and the narrow scope for mitigating factors in extreme cases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Deemed Admission: If an attorney fails to answer formal charges, all factual allegations are automatically accepted as true without further proof.
• Baseline Sanction: The starting point for punishment—here, conversion and dishonesty justify disbarment under ABA Standards.
• Permanence vs. Disbarment: Ordinary disbarment allows the possibility of future reinstatement; permanent disbarment (Rule XIX § 10(A)(1)) bars readmission forever when misconduct is extremely serious and rehabilitation is unlikely.
• Permanency Guidelines (Appendix D): List of scenarios—such as repeated conversion of client funds causing substantial harm—that warrant permanent disbarment.
• Permanent Resignation in Lieu of Discipline: A mechanism for a remorseful attorney to exit practice voluntarily; moot when disciplinary proceedings have run their course and permanent disbarment is ordered.

Conclusion

In Re: Kevin Michael Steel cements the principle that an attorney who repeatedly defrauds clients and obstructs disciplinary processes, despite prior sanctions, forfeits any entitlement to remain in or return to the profession. By permanently disbarring Steel and denying his retirement-in-lieu bid, the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the integrity of the bar, protected the public, and underscored that no licensee may expect leniency after a demonstrable pattern of bad faith and financial harm.