The Duty of Full Candor in Pro Hac Vice Admissions and Federal Filings: Commentary on In re Henry L. Klein (La. 2025)

The Duty of Full Candor in Pro Hac Vice Admissions and Federal Filings: Commentary on In re Henry L. Klein (La. 2025)

I. Introduction

The Supreme Court of Louisiana’s per curiam decision in In re: Henry L. Klein, No. 2025-B-0537 (La. Dec. 18, 2025), is a significant addition to Louisiana’s attorney disciplinary jurisprudence. It reinforces, with concrete sanctions, the principle that:

  • Lawyers must make full and accurate disclosure of their disciplinary history when seeking pro hac vice admission in any court, including out-of-state federal courts; and
  • Misrepresentations or half-truths in litigation filings, even outside Louisiana, can form the basis for discipline in the lawyer’s home jurisdiction.

The decision also illustrates how the Louisiana Supreme Court calibrates sanctions when:

  • The misconduct is repeated,
  • Occurs alongside other pending disciplinary matters (Klein III), and
  • Reflected a knowing and intentional pattern of dishonesty rather than mere negligence.

The case arises from complaints by federal attorneys representing the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) against respondent Henry L. Klein, a Louisiana lawyer with a long disciplinary history, including multiple reprimands, admonitions, and prior suspensions in 1987, 1989, and 2023. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) alleged that Klein:

  1. Failed to fully disclose his disciplinary history in several pro hac vice applications filed in various federal district courts; and
  2. Made a materially false statement in a motion to stay in a federal case in Indiana.

On these facts, the Louisiana Supreme Court imposed an eighteen-month suspension, running consecutively to the one-year-and-one-day suspension imposed in In re: Klein, 23-0066 (La. 5/18/23), 362 So. 3d 392 (Klein III). As adjusted by this decision, Klein’s suspension runs from June 27, 2023 through December 29, 2025, subject to formal reinstatement procedures.

Two justices dissented on sanction severity (Hughes, J., and Griffin, J., both indicating the sanction was too harsh), underscoring the closeness of the sanctioning judgment, even though there was no serious dispute that misconduct occurred.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Respondent’s Prior Disciplinary History

Klein was admitted to practice in Louisiana in 1968 and accumulated an extensive record of discipline:

  • Private reprimands: 1975, 1988, 1989.
  • Admonitions: 1993, 2018.
  • Suspensions:
    • Klein I: 90-day suspension – Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Klein, 511 So. 2d 1137 (La. 1987).
    • Klein II: 6-month suspension – Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Klein, 538 So. 2d 559 (La. 1989).

In 2023, the Court decided Klein III, suspending Klein for one year and one day for:

  • Unsubstantiated disparaging remarks about a trial judge and opposing counsel,
  • Harassing communications with a law clerk,
  • Filing duplicative pleadings despite a court order to stop without leave, and
  • Removing a case to federal court solely for delay.

The Court in Klein III found the charges proved “beyond question” and described Klein as showing a “disturbing lack of respect for the judicial system and his obligations as a professional,” and a “continued lack of remorse.” That suspension became effective June 27, 2023.

Klein’s subsequent attempts to stay or challenge the Klein III suspension in the U.S. Supreme Court were denied, including an application for stay (by Justices Alito and Kagan, the latter referring to the full Court) and a petition for certiorari.

B. The 2023 Complaint by USDA-FNS Attorneys

In March 2023, USDA-FNS attorneys Lisa Billman and Jeffrey Pyle lodged a disciplinary complaint with the Louisiana ODC. They are government lawyers specializing in SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) matters. Klein represents retail food stores in SNAP-related judicial review proceedings.

Their complaint alleged two main categories of misconduct:

  1. Misleading or incomplete disclosures in pro hac vice motions filed in federal courts in:
    • Illinois (Asad A. Kahn v. United States),
    • California (ABOA, LLC v. Thomas), and
    • Oklahoma (AR Food Mart v. United States).
  2. A misrepresentation in a litigation motion filed in:
    • Indiana (Enas N.A. Said v. United States).

The ODC also alleged Klein failed to respond to the disciplinary complaint, though the disciplinary board later found insufficient proof on that point.

C. The Four Federal Cases at Issue

1. Asad A. Kahn v. United States (N.D. Ill.)

The Northern District of Illinois provides a standard form pro hac vice motion requiring:

  • Disclosure of any prior sanctions, censure, suspension, disbarment, or discipline by any court,
  • Disclosure of current investigations, and
  • Disclosure of any denial of admission or contempt findings.

On January 30, 2023, Klein:

  • Chose not to use the court’s standard form and drafted his own motion.
  • Attached a lengthy CV and a brief statement referring to his 1989 suspension (Klein II) only.
  • Omitted:
    • The then-pending Klein III disciplinary proceeding,
    • His prior admonitions and reprimands,
    • His earlier suspension in Klein I,
    • A civil contempt finding in a bankruptcy matter (In re: Regina Berglass Heisler), and
    • Rule 11 sanctions in Heisler v. Kean Miller, LLP (E.D. La.).

This was not a mere failure to attach a piece of paper; Klein created a bespoke motion that allowed him to avoid categorical questions that might force full disclosure.

2. ABOA, LLC v. Thomas (E.D. Cal.)

On August 8, 2022, Klein filed a pro hac vice motion in the Eastern District of California in which he affirmatively stated that he had:

  • “Not been disbarred or formally censured by a court of record or by a state bar association; and there are not disciplinary proceedings against me.”

He attached a certificate of good standing from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dated September 14, 2021. The California federal court later took judicial notice of Klein’s prior suspensions in Klein I and Klein II and revoked his pro hac vice status.

3. AR Food Mart v. United States (N.D. Okla.)

On August 29, 2019, Klein filed a pro hac vice application in the Northern District of Oklahoma, representing that he had never been:

  • “Denied admission, disbarred, suspended from practice, reprimanded, denied ‘in good standing’ status, or otherwise disciplined by any court [or] bar association.”

The court discovered that Klein “has been disciplined twice” in Louisiana (Klein I and Klein II) and denied the application. Klein then moved for reconsideration, admitting only:

“[H]e was led to believe that after 30 years, disclosure was not required. Bad advice and I was wrong.”

But even then, he did not disclose his full disciplinary history; he acknowledged only the two instances already uncovered by the court.

4. Enas N.A. Said v. United States (S.D. Ind.)

In this SNAP-related case in Indiana, on April 11, 2022, Klein moved to stay the court’s scheduling order, stating:

“[A] request has been made with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer all cases to the District of Columbia.”

The federal court determined this representation was untrue. The request to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) was not actually filed until May 12, 2022, one month later. The court characterized this conduct as “inherently sanctionable” and admonished Klein that such behavior was unacceptable.

D. Disciplinary Proceedings in Louisiana

1. Formal Charges

In January 2024, the ODC formally charged Klein with violating:

  • Rule 3.3(a)(1) – knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or failing to correct such a statement;
  • Rule 8.1(a) – knowingly making a false statement of material fact in connection with a bar admission or disciplinary matter;
  • Rule 8.1(b) – failure to disclose a necessary fact to correct a misapprehension in a bar admission or disciplinary matter, or knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand from a disciplinary authority;
  • Rule 8.1(c) – failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation;
  • Rule 8.4(a) – violating the Rules of Professional Conduct;
  • Rule 8.4(c) – conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and
  • Rule 8.4(d) – conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Klein filed an answer, but instead of responding to specific factual allegations, he broadly attacked the disciplinary system and the deputy disciplinary counsel.

2. Hearing Committee

A formal hearing was held on July 29, 2024. Klein represented himself but:

  • Did not testify, and
  • Offered no evidence.

The ODC presented documentary evidence and called Ms. Billman as a witness; Mr. Pyle’s testimony was stipulated to be materially similar.

The hearing committee found:

  • Rule violations proven in connection with the Kahn and ABOA pro hac vice motions:
    • Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
  • No violation of Rules 3.3(a)(1), 8.1(a), 8.1(b), or 8.1(c>.
  • Insufficient proof of misconduct in AR Food Mart and Said.

The committee concluded:

  • Klein violated duties to clients, the public, the legal system, and the profession.
  • He acted negligently (as to mental state).
  • His misconduct caused actual harm to clients, courts, and the disciplinary system.
  • Under the ABA Standards, the baseline sanction was suspension.

Aggravating factors:

  • Prior disciplinary record,
  • Lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors:

  • Age and “personal struggles.”

The committee recommended a suspension of one year and one day, retroactive to June 29, 2024.

3. Disciplinary Board

Klein objected to the committee’s report, and the matter proceeded to the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board. The Board:

  • Accepted most factual findings but rejected the characterization of Klein’s mental state as negligent, finding it knowing and intentional.
  • Found additional misconduct in the AR Food Mart case (failure to disclose full disciplinary history in that pro hac vice application).

Accordingly, the Board concluded Klein violated:

  • Rule 3.3(a)(1) – false statement to a tribunal;
  • Rule 8.1(a) – false statement of material fact in connection with a bar admission;
  • Rule 8.1(b) – failure to correct misapprehensions in admission/disciplinary contexts;
  • Rule 8.4(a) – general violation of the Rules;
  • Rule 8.4(c) – dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and
  • Rule 8.4(d) – conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The Board explicitly did not find a violation of Rule 8.1(c) (non-cooperation), because there was no evidence that Klein failed to respond to a lawful demand for information.

On sanction, the Board found:

  • Duties violated: to clients, the public, the legal system, and the profession.
  • Mental state: knowing and intentional.
  • Harm: actual harm through wasted court resources, impairing courts’ ability to judge his fitness, delays, and possible adverse impact on clients’ claims.
  • Baseline sanction: suspension to disbarment range (given knowing dishonesty to tribunals and in bar-related disclosures).

Aggravating factors:

  • Prior disciplinary record,
  • Dishonest or selfish motive,
  • Pattern of misconduct,
  • Refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct,
  • Substantial experience in practice.

Mitigating factor:

  • Remoteness of prior offenses (other than a 2018 admonition).

The Board rejected “age and personal struggles” as mitigating where unsupported by evidence.

Noting that the misconduct overlapped in time with the events in Klein III, the Board applied the Chatelain analysis (Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Chatelain, 573 So. 2d 470 (La. 1991)), treating the cases as essentially contemporaneous. Considering Klein’s conduct in:

  • Klein III,
  • AR Food Mart,
  • ABOA, and
  • Kahn,

and comparing with:

  • In re: Stamps, 03-2985 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So. 2d 113 (disbarment for knowing concealment of facts on bar applications), and
  • In re: Harvey, 19-1829 (La. 2/18/20), 289 So. 3d 1000 (one year and one day suspension for nondisclosure of a DWI to the Committee on Bar Admissions and failure to cooperate),

the Board recommended extending Klein’s suspension in Klein III so that he would be suspended for a total of three years beginning June 27, 2023.

4. Supreme Court Review

Klein again objected, and the case was set for oral argument under Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G)(1)(b). After argument:

  • The Court granted Klein leave to file a post-argument brief.
  • It denied his separate “Motion to Enforce NAACP v. Button,” in which he sought to enjoin the ODC from further proceedings allegedly depriving him of his livelihood.

On October 17, 2025, Klein filed a “Motion to Consider Petition for Reinstatement as Basis for Dismissal of Charges,” which the Court denied as premature on November 19, 2025 in In re: Klein, 25-1316 (La. 11/19/25).

III. Summary of the Supreme Court’s Opinion

The Louisiana Supreme Court:

  1. Found Misconduct. The Court independently reviewed the record (as required in disciplinary matters) and held that:
    • Klein failed to fully and accurately disclose his disciplinary history in his pro hac vice motions in the Kahn, ABOA, and AR Food Mart cases; and
    • He misrepresented a material fact in his motion to stay the scheduling order in Said (Indiana), by stating that a JPML transfer request had been made when it had not yet been filed.

    The Court adopted the rule violations as found by the Disciplinary Board: Rules 3.3(a)(1), 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).

  2. Rejected Klein’s Defenses. Klein argued that he was a zealous advocate trying to correct perceived injustices and alleged a “conspiracy” against him. The Court:
    • Identified these as the same defenses it had already rejected in Klein III, and
    • Held that he had again “crossed the boundary between zealous advocacy and professional misconduct.”
  3. Found Knowing and Intentional Conduct. The Court agreed with the Board that Klein’s actions were knowing and intentional, not merely negligent, and that they caused actual harm to:
    • Clients,
    • The public,
    • The legal system, and
    • The profession.
  4. Determined the Sanction. Applying:
    • The ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions,
    • Aggravating and mitigating factors, and
    • Prior jurisprudence, including Reis and Whittington,
    the Court concluded the baseline sanction was suspension. Considering Klein’s history, motives, pattern, lack of remorse, and experience, the Court set the sanction at:
    • Eighteen (18) months’ suspension,
    • Consecutive to the one-year-and-one-day suspension in Klein III.
  5. Made the Suspension Retroactive and Continuous. The Court specified:
    • Klein III suspension: June 27, 2023 – June 28, 2024.
    • New 18-month suspension: June 29, 2024 – December 29, 2025.

    Thus, Klein is effectively suspended continuously for approximately 2.5 years, though the new order is partly retroactive by the time it is issued.

  6. Imposed Costs. The Court assessed all costs and expenses of the proceeding against Klein with legal interest from 30 days after finality of judgment until paid, under Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1.
  7. Clarified Reinstatement Requirements. If Klein wishes to return to practice, he must comply with the formal reinstatement procedures of Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24.

IV. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

A. The Klein Trilogy: Klein I, Klein II, and Klein III

  • Klein I, 511 So. 2d 1137 (La. 1987) – 90-day suspension: early marker of misconduct in his career.
  • Klein II, 538 So. 2d 559 (La. 1989) – 6-month suspension: further discipline for unethical conduct.
  • Klein III, 23-0066 (La. 5/18/23), 362 So. 3d 392 – 1 year and 1 day suspension:
    • Confirmed Klein’s “disturbing lack of respect for the judicial system.”
    • Identified “continued lack of remorse.”
    • Provided the immediate backdrop and context for this new case.

The Court expressly relies on Klein III to:

  • Reject Klein’s repeated “zealous advocate” and conspiracy defenses; and
  • Support a harsher sanction based on his pattern of misconduct and persistent refusal to accept responsibility.

B. Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Chatelain, 573 So. 2d 470 (La. 1991)

Chatelain deals with how to structure sanctions when an attorney faces multiple disciplinary proceedings for misconduct occurring in overlapping time frames. The core principle is:

Where multiple instances of misconduct are essentially part of a single course of conduct, but are processed in separate proceedings, the court may determine the sanction as if all misconduct had been presented in one proceeding. This can support concurrent or partially concurrent sanctions, often with retroactive effect.

The Disciplinary Board invoked Chatelain because:

  • Klein’s conduct in the federal cases overlapped in time with the events in Klein III, and
  • The Board therefore considered the combined misconduct across Klein’s 2019–2023 SNAP practice.

However, the Supreme Court ultimately did not follow the Board’s proposed outcome (a three-year total suspension from June 27, 2023). Instead, the Court imposed a separate 18‑month suspension consecutive to Klein III, though it ran retroactively from June 29, 2024.

This shows that while Chatelain provides an analytic framework, it does not bind the Court to concurrent or unified sanctions: the Court retains broad discretion to impose consecutive suspensions when it deems it necessary to protect the public and the integrity of the profession, especially in the face of continuing or escalating misconduct.

C. In re: Stamps, 03-2985 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So. 2d 113

In Stamps, the Court disbarred two attorneys who:

  • Knowingly concealed information related to their employment in bar applications,
  • Thereby hiding their unauthorized legal practice in another state.

Stamps stands for a strong proposition: intentional dishonesty in bar admission or bar-related disclosures—especially concealment of unauthorized practice—can justify disbarment. The Disciplinary Board cited Stamps to frame the upper boundary of sanctions for dishonest nondisclosure in admission contexts.

The Board observed that Klein’s conduct, though serious, was not as egregious as in Stamps:

  • He was not applying to the bar for initial admission, but for pro hac vice admission to individual cases;
  • He did not conceal an entire history of unauthorized practice in another state.

Nevertheless, the Court clearly borrowed the Stamps logic: Full candor in admission-related processes is non-negotiable. Klein’s repeated concealment of disciplinary history in multiple pro hac vice applications was treated as serious, though stopped short of disbarment.

D. In re: Harvey, 19-1829 (La. 2/18/20), 289 So. 3d 1000

In Harvey, the lawyer:

  • Failed to communicate with a client,
  • Failed to disclose a DWI arrest to the Committee on Bar Admissions (the arrest occurred after completing the bar exam paperwork but before the exam was taken), and
  • Failed to cooperate with the ODC.

The Court imposed a suspension of one year and one day. Harvey illustrates that nondisclosure of material facts in the admission process—even a single event like a DWI arrest—can warrant a significant suspension.

By citing Harvey, the Board and Court placed Klein’s misconduct on a spectrum that includes:

  • Harvey – nondisclosure of a single arrest to the bar admission authority (1 year + 1 day suspension).
  • Stamps – systematic concealment of unauthorized practice in bar applications (disbarment).
  • Klein – multiple, repeated nondisclosures and misrepresentations in out-of-state pro hac vice applications and a federal motion.

The Court’s 18‑month suspension places Klein between Harvey and Stamps on this continuum of seriousness.

E. Foundational Disciplinary Cases

  • In re: Banks, 09-1212 (La. 10/2/09), 18 So. 3d 57 – Reaffirms that the Supreme Court:
    • Has original jurisdiction over disciplinary matters, and
    • Acts as trier of fact, independently reviewing the record under a “clear and convincing evidence” standard.
  • In re: Caulfield, 96-1401 (La. 11/25/96), 683 So. 2d 714, and In re: Pardue, 93-2865 (La. 3/11/94), 633 So. 2d 150 – Establish that, while the Court is not bound by lower findings, it applies a “manifest error” standard to fact findings of the hearing committee.
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Reis, 513 So. 2d 1173 (La. 1987) – Articulates the overarching purposes of discipline:
    • Maintain high standards,
    • Protect the public,
    • Preserve the integrity of the profession, and
    • Deter future misconduct.
  • Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Whittington, 459 So. 2d 520 (La. 1984) – Emphasizes that sanctions must be tailored to:
    • The specific facts of each case, and
    • The seriousness of the offenses, in light of aggravating and mitigating factors.

These foundational cases underpin the Court’s methodology:

  • Independent factual review with deference to factual findings absent manifest error;
  • Use of the clear and convincing evidence standard;
  • Case-specific sanctioning guided by ABA Standards and prior jurisprudence.

V. Analysis of the Court’s Legal Reasoning

A. Standard of Review and Burden of Proof

Disciplinary proceedings fall within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction (La. Const. art. V, § 5(B)). The Court:

  • Conducts an independent review of the record,
  • Determines whether misconduct is proved by clear and convincing evidence, and
  • Applies a manifest error standard to the hearing committee’s factual findings.

“Clear and convincing” is a heightened civil standard requiring evidence that “instantly tilts the scales” and leaves the factfinder with a firm conviction in the truth of the allegations. The Court had little difficulty meeting this standard here, given the documentary record of Klein’s own filings.

B. Duty of Candor in Pro Hac Vice Applications

Central to the decision is the premise that applications for pro hac vice admission are functionally akin to mini admission processes, and thus the same standards of candor apply. A lawyer must:

  • Fully and accurately disclose prior discipline and relevant facts;
  • Correct any misapprehensions or partial disclosures; and
  • Not mislead the court by omission, half-truth, or strategic avoidance of required forms.

In Kahn, Klein did not simply “forget” a form; he:

  • Opted out of the court’s own standardized disclosure form,
  • Drafted his own motion, and
  • Chose to mention only one past suspension while omitting:
    • Other suspensions,
    • Admonitions and reprimands, and
    • Recent contempt and sanctions.

In ABOA and AR Food Mart, the representations were not just incomplete; they were affirmatively inaccurate (“I have not been suspended, reprimanded, or otherwise disciplined”).

The Court’s adoption of the Board’s Rule 8.1(a) and 8.1(b) findings underscores that:

  • These pro hac vice applications are “bar admission applications” within the meaning of Rule 8.1.
  • False statements or omissions there are disciplinary violations even if made in other jurisdictions.

C. Misrepresentation in the Indiana Motion to Stay

The Said case illustrates that the duty of candor extends to all statements made to tribunals, not just formal admissions applications. Klein’s statement that an MDL transfer request “has been made” was objectively false at the time filed.

By referencing the Indiana court’s own finding that this was “inherently sanctionable conduct,” the Louisiana Supreme Court effectively:

  • Endorses the federal court’s characterization, and
  • Uses it as further proof of a knowing misrepresentation to a tribunal under Rule 3.3(a)(1).

D. Mental State: Knowing and Intentional vs. Negligent

The hearing committee treated Klein’s conduct as negligent; the Board and Supreme Court rejected that view. Several circumstances support the Court’s finding of a knowing and intentional mental state:

  • Pattern and repetition: Misstatements and omissions were not isolated; they occurred in at least three distinct pro hac vice applications and a separate motion to stay.
  • Tailored drafting: In Kahn, Klein’s choice to avoid the court’s form and draft his own motion suggests he was trying to structure his disclosures to downplay or omit negative information.
  • Partial admissions only when caught: In AR Food Mart, even when confronted, he disclosed only what the court had already discovered and not his full disciplinary history.
  • Timing: Much of the conduct occurred while he was already under scrutiny for other disciplinary matters, heightening the inference of intentionality rather than inadvertence.

The Court’s express statement—“we agree with the board that respondent acted knowingly and intentionally”—thus rests on both the nature of the misstatements and the broader pattern.

E. Harm and Aggravating Factors

The Court accepts the Board’s characterization of harm:

  • To courts: Time and resources spent probing his disciplinary history; impairment of their ability to judge his fitness for pro hac vice admission.
  • To clients: Delays and potential adverse outcomes, including possible dismissals or strategic disadvantages, when courts revoked or denied admission.
  • To the profession and public: Erosion of trust in lawyers’ candor, particularly in admission processes intended to protect the public and integrity of courts.

Aggravating factors, all substantiated in the record:

  • Prior disciplinary record – extensive and long-standing.
  • Dishonest or selfish motive – concealment of negative information to gain access to courts in other jurisdictions.
  • Pattern of misconduct – multiple instances over several years, in different jurisdictions.
  • Refusal to acknowledge wrongfulness – continued framing of his actions as “zealous advocacy” and unsupported conspiracy theories.
  • Substantial experience – over five decades of practice; he knew or should certainly have known better.

Mitigation is minimal:

  • Remoteness of some prior offenses (over 30 years old) – but offset by a 2018 admonition and the recent Klein III suspension.
  • No credible evidence of health or personal issues causing the misconduct.

F. Sanction Selection and Structure

The Court begins from the principle that:

  • Baseline sanction for knowing dishonesty to tribunals and in bar-related disclosures is at least suspension, potentially extending to disbarment.

Against this baseline, the Court considers:

  • The serious—though not Stamps-level—nature of the dishonest nondisclosures,
  • The repeated instances across jurisdictions,
  • Klein’s long record and lack of remorse.

Rather than the Board’s recommended three-year suspension (effective from June 27, 2023), the Court settles on:

  • An 18-month suspension,
  • Consecutive to the one-year-and-one-day suspension in Klein III,
  • Retroactively running from June 29, 2024 to December 29, 2025.

This approach:

  • Maintains continuity of suspension (no gaps),
  • Signals that the new misconduct warrants an additional penalty beyond Klein III, rather than being fully subsumed under it, and
  • Still moderates the total length (approximately 2.5 years) below what the Board would have effectively imposed (three years from June 27, 2023).

The dissenting justices (Hughes and Griffin) would have imposed a lesser sanction, but the per curiam does not detail their reasoning.

VI. Complex Concepts Simplified

A. Pro Hac Vice Admission

Pro hac vice (Latin for “for this occasion”) admission allows a lawyer licensed in one jurisdiction to appear in a specific case in another jurisdiction, typically in another state or federal district court, without being fully admitted there.

Key points:

  • It is a privilege, not a right.
  • Courts often require:
    • Association with local counsel,
    • Payment of a fee, and
    • A sworn statement about disciplinary history.
  • Misleading a court in a pro hac vice application can:
    • Lead to denial or revocation of admission in that case, and
    • Trigger disciplinary proceedings in the lawyer’s home state, as in Klein’s case.

B. ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions

These standards provide a structured framework for determining sanctions, asking:

  1. What duty was violated? (to clients, public, legal system, or profession)
  2. What was the lawyer’s mental state? (negligent, knowing, or intentional)
  3. What harm resulted? (actual or potential)
  4. What aggravating or mitigating factors exist?

From these, courts determine a baseline sanction (e.g., reprimand, suspension, disbarment) and then adjust up or down.

C. “Clear and Convincing Evidence”

This is an intermediate standard of proof—stronger than “preponderance of the evidence” but less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It requires that:

  • The evidence be highly and substantially more likely to be true than not; and
  • The trier of fact have a firm belief in the factual assertions.

In disciplinary cases, this standard protects attorneys from discipline based on weak or ambiguous proof, but permits discipline when misconduct is firmly established.

D. “Manifest Error” Review of Fact Findings

While the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in disciplinary matters, it often defers to the hearing committee’s findings of fact unless those findings are:

  • Clearly wrong,
  • Unsupported by the evidence, or
  • Internally inconsistent.

This “manifest error” standard promotes stability and respects the committee’s role as the primary factfinder, especially on matters of credibility, while preserving the Court’s ultimate authority.

E. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

These are circumstances that can make discipline more or less severe:

  • Aggravating factors:
    • Prior discipline,
    • Dishonest motive,
    • Pattern of misconduct,
    • Lack of remorse,
    • Substantial experience (when misconduct should have been clearly avoidable).
  • Mitigating factors:
    • Absence of prior discipline,
    • Remorse, cooperation, restitution,
    • Personal or emotional problems significantly causing the misconduct (if proven),
    • Remoteness of prior offenses.

Klein’s case is dominated by aggravating factors and very little mitigation.

F. Retroactive and Consecutive Suspensions

A suspension can be:

  • Retroactive – made effective as of an earlier date (for example, starting the suspension as of the date the lawyer was placed on interim suspension or another related date).
  • Consecutive – beginning after another suspension ends, effectively extending the total time under suspension.

Here, the Court imposed an 18‑month suspension consecutive to Klein III, but retroactively designated its start date as June 29, 2024, the day after the prior suspension ended. That design makes Klein’s suspension continuous.

VII. Impact and Future Implications

A. Reinforcement of Candor in Pro Hac Vice Admissions

This decision sends a strong signal that:

  • Out-of-state misconduct in federal courts—especially involving pro hac vice applications—is fully within the ambit of Louisiana’s disciplinary system.
  • The duty of candor is not limited by geography: misrepresentations in Illinois, California, Oklahoma, or Indiana can and will have consequences in Louisiana.

Attorneys with disciplinary histories must:

  • Disclose them fully when any court asks about prior discipline or investigations;
  • Avoid the temptation to “edit” their records based on what they think is old, minor, or unlikely to be discovered.

B. Clarifying the Line Between Zealous Advocacy and Misconduct

Klein’s repeated attempt to recast his conduct as zealous advocacy—and to allege conspiracies—was flatly rejected. The Court’s approach clarifies that:

  • Zealous advocacy does not permit:
    • Lying about procedural filings (e.g., whether an MDL petition has been filed), or
    • Withholding material disciplinary history from admission forms.
  • Lawyers cannot immunize themselves from discipline by characterizing misconduct as part of an “effort to address injustice.”

C. Sanction Calibration for Repeated Dishonesty

The case provides a concrete sanction benchmark: an 18-month suspension (consecutive to a prior 1 year + 1 day suspension)** for:

  • Multiple pro hac vice misrepresentations over several years across multiple jurisdictions, and
  • A materially false statement to a tribunal in a litigation motion.

Combined with Harvey and Stamps, this ruling helps define a sanction gradient for admission-related dishonesty:

  • Single, serious nondisclosure to bar admissions authority – ~1 year + 1 day (Harvey).
  • Multiple misrepresentations and omissions in pro hac vice and court filings – ~2.5 years total continuous suspension (Klein series).
  • Deliberate concealment of unauthorized practice in multiple bar applications – disbarment (Stamps).

D. Limits of the Chatelain Framework

By declining to structure Klein’s sanctions exactly as the Disciplinary Board proposed under Chatelain, the Court reaffirmed:

  • Chatelain is a guide, not a straitjacket.
  • The Court may impose additional, consecutive discipline when it deems the lawyer’s continuing conduct warrants separate punishment and stronger protection for the public.

E. Importance of Evidence-Based Mitigation

The Board’s and Court’s refusal to accept “age and personal struggles” as mitigating—absent supporting evidence—reinforces that:

  • Mitigation must be proved,
  • Vague assertions or arguments in briefs are insufficient, and
  • Respondents who do not testify or present evidence weaken their ability to claim meaningful mitigation.

VIII. Conclusion

In re: Henry L. Klein (La. 2025) stands as a clear and forceful reaffirmation of the lawyer’s duty of full candor in:

  • Pro hac vice applications in any jurisdiction, and
  • All representations made to tribunals, including procedural matters like whether an MDL petition has been filed.

The decision:

  • Confirms that out-of-state misconduct is fully cognizable in Louisiana’s disciplinary system;
  • Rejects attempts to reframe misrepresentation as zealous advocacy or systemic persecution;
  • Applies and refines sanctioning principles drawn from Chatelain, Stamps, and Harvey to a modern, multi-jurisdictional practice context; and
  • Imposes a substantial, consecutive suspension—effectively 2.5 years continuous—for repeated, knowing, and intentional dishonesty by a highly experienced lawyer with a lengthy disciplinary history.

For practitioners, the message is unambiguous: every application for special admission, every certification of disciplinary history, and every factual representation to a court is a moment of ethical significance. Inaccuracies and omissions in these contexts are not mere technicalities; they strike at the heart of the profession’s integrity and will be met with serious discipline.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana

Comments