Precedent on Written Fee Agreements and Diligent Representation: In Re: Lindsey J. Leavoy

Introduction

In In Re: Lindsey J. Leavoy, the Supreme Court of Louisiana clarified the obligations of attorneys under the Rules of Professional Conduct concerning written contingency‐fee agreements, fee division among counsel not in the same firm, and the duty to diligently pursue a client’s case. The proceeding arose from formal charges by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) against respondent Lindsey J. Leavoy, an attorney admitted in 1988 and already on interim suspension for public safety concerns. The underlying client matter involved Cornelius Jackson’s personal injury claim, which was ultimately dismissed for abandonment. Key issues include respondent’s lack of a written fee agreement, failure to communicate with his client, and dereliction of duty in prosecuting the lawsuit.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court, acting as trier of fact, deemed respondent’s failure to answer the formal charges an admission of all factual allegations. It found that:

• Respondent did not secure Mr. Jackson’s written signature on a contingency‐fee contract, in violation of Rule 1.5(c).
• Respondent failed to obtain informed, written consent for fee‐splitting with co‐counsel, contrary to Rule 1.5(e).
• Respondent abandoned the case by not moving to set it for trial, breaching Rule 1.3 (diligence) and Rule 1.4 (communication).

Considering aggravating factors (long experience, non-cooperation) and minimal mitigation (no prior discipline), the Court imposed a twelve-month suspension—six months active, six months deferred—plus one year of probation, retroactive to August 7, 2024.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• In re: Banks, 09-1212 (La. 10/2/09), 18 So. 3d 57: Confirms the Supreme Court’s role in independently reviewing disciplinary records and treating admitted facts as proven.
• In re: Donnan, 01-3058 (La. 1/10/03), 838 So. 2d 715: Holds that deemed-admitted facts prove the violation, but legal conclusions flowing from those facts must be evident or supported by additional evidence.
• Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So. 2d 1173 (La. 1987): Establishes objectives of disciplinary sanctions—public protection, integrity of the profession, deterrence.
• Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So. 2d 520 (La. 1984): Directs that sanctions should be tailored to the gravity of misconduct and relevant aggravating/mitigating circumstances.

These authorities guided the Court in (1) treating the ODC’s allegations as established fact, (2) confirming the necessity of clear rule violations, and (3) selecting an appropriate sanction consistent with past jurisprudence.

Legal Reasoning

1. Admission of Facts: Under Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3), unanswered formal charges result in deemed admission of all factual allegations. This procedural rule relieved the ODC of further proof burdens.

2. Rule Violations: The Court mapped admitted facts directly onto four rules:

• Rule 1.3: Failure to act with reasonable diligence—evidenced by case abandonment.
• Rule 1.4: Failure to keep the client reasonably informed—no communication for years.
• Rule 1.5(c): No written contingency‐fee agreement signed by the client.
• Rule 1.5(e): No written client consent for fee division with non-firm co-counsel.

3. Sanction Framework: Relying on the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the “baseline” sanction for knowing violations causing client harm is suspension. The Court then weighed:

• Aggravation: Thirty-plus years in practice; complete non-cooperation with ODC.
• Mitigation: No prior discipline.

These factors supported a suspension of twelve months, with half deferred and probation.

Impact

This decision reinforces critical duties for Louisiana practitioners:

• Strict compliance with written contingency-fee agreements and fee-splitting disclosures.
• Prompt prosecution of client matters to avoid abandonment.
• Timely, clear communication throughout representation.

Future disciplinary boards and courts will cite Leavoy when evaluating omissions in fee documentation, client communication failures, and case management lapses. It underscores the risk that failure to answer charges results in automatic admission and swift sanction.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Deemed Admission: If an attorney does not respond to formal charges, all factual claims are accepted as true without further proof.
• Baseline Sanction: The starting point for punishment under ABA Standards—here, suspension—before considering aggravating or mitigating factors.
• Fee‐Splitting Rule: When lawyers from different firms share a contingent fee, the client must consent in writing, specifying each lawyer’s share.
• Reasonable Diligence: An attorney’s obligation to move a case forward, file necessary motions, and pursue client objectives without undue delay.

Conclusion

In In Re: Lindsey J. Leavoy, the Louisiana Supreme Court cemented a clear rule: attorneys must secure written contingency-fee agreements, obtain client consent for fee divisions, communicate regularly, and diligently prosecute client matters. The twelve-month suspension (six months active, six deferred) with probation highlights the profession’s insistence on procedural compliance and safeguarding client interests. This decision will serve as a guiding precedent for both disciplinary bodies and practitioners striving to uphold the highest standards of legal conduct.