In Re: Christian Drew Chesson

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 01, 2020
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: CHRISTIAN DREW CHESSON
No.2020-B-00073
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Notice of Discipline in Another
Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule XIX, Section 21 and Motion to Initiate Reciprocal
Discipline Proceedings;
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 01, 2020
No additional discipline imposed. See per curiam.
Weimer, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JHB
05/01/2020 "See News Release 015 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

05/01/20
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
20-B-0073
I
N RE: CHRISTIAN DREW CHESSON
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
P
ursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
(“ODC”) has filed a petition seeking the imposition of reciprocal discipline against
respondent, Christian Drew Chesson, an attorney licensed to practice law in
Louisiana, based upon discipline imposed by the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Western District of Louisiana (“Bankruptcy Court”).
UNDE
RLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The United States Trustee for Region 5 (“Trustee”) brought an action against
respondent and his law firm. The Trustee alleged that respondent’s employees filed
false Credit Counseling Verifications (“Verifications”) in at least eleven Chapter 13
cases that were filed in the Bankruptcy Court between July 2014 and April 2016.
According to the Trustee, respondent’s staff impersonated the individual debtors
during mandatory consumer credit counseling courses and then prepared and filed
Verifications that falsely stated that the debtors had completed the courses prior to
filing their cases.
1
Following a trial on the merits, United States Bankruptcy Judge Robert
Summerhays found that respondent’s employees engaged in a pervasive scheme to
1 A credit counseling course is a statutory prerequisite to filing for bankruptcy, and failure to take
the course renders a debtor ineligible for bankruptcy.

2

circumvent the credit counseling requirements of the Bankruptcy Code by filing
false Verifications using respondent’s electronic signature. Judge Summerhays also
determined that respondent had: (1) breached his professional duties of oversight of
his paralegals; (2) failed to ensure the veracity of the pleadings filed under his
electronic signature in the eleven cases at issue; and (3) acted in bad faith in failing
to exercise his professional obligations to oversee his staff and ensure that the
documents filed under his signature were true and accurate. Judge Summerhays
found that respondent’s conduct in failing to oversee hi s staff resulted not only in
the filing of false pleadings in the eleven cases, but also in the filing of cases for
debtors who were not eligible to file for relief under Chapter 13. Judge Summerhays
concluded that respondent’s conduct was “atypical” and “extraordinary” and
displayed “dishonesty of belief, purpose or motive.”
On August 29, 2018, Judge Summerhays entered an order suspending
respondent from the practice of law before the Bankruptcy Court for a period of
ninety days.2 In addition, respondent was assessed a $5,000 civil penalty, ordered
to disgorge all fees and expenses collected in the eleven cases, ordered to take several
remedial measures, and barred from filing new Chapter 13 cases until an approved
remediation plan was in place. Judge Summerhays also referred respondent to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (“Western

2 L.R. 83.2.10 for the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana provides:

A.1. Any judge of this Court including a Bankruptcy court judge
may take limited action to initiate disciplinary proceedings in
accordance with Section B.2.

* * *

B.2. For fines or suspensions of 90 days or less, the judge may take
action without approval of the active judges of the court or the Chief
Judge. For suspensions greater than 90 days or disbarments, the
judge shall refer these proceedings for review to the Chief Judge of
this court…

3

District”) for further disciplinary action. Judge Summerhays recommended that
respondent be suspended from practice in the Western District for one year.
Following the referral from Judge Summerhays, United States Magistrate
Judge Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes conducted an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing,
respondent testified that he did not appeal Judge Summerhays’ ruling because he
believed it was fair. However, he denied that he had any knowledge of the credit
counseling scheme before the Trustee filed the complaint. He also testified that he
had complied with Judge Summerhays’ orders and had put in place remedial
measures to ensure that the situation will never happen again within his office.
On July 31, 2019, the magistrate judge issued his report and recommendation.
The magistrate judge noted in his report that during the pendency of the matter,
respondent had served the period of suspension initially imposed by Judge
Summerhays along with a lengthy additional period of suspension. 3 Respondent
also satisfied other – and extensive – financial and remedial requirements. Finally,
through these steps and his own representations, respondent offered assurance that
he understood the gravity of his misconduct and the requirement to prevent any such
misconduct in the future. Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended that no
additional sanctions be imposed upon respondent.
Neither respondent nor the Trustee objected to the magistrate judge’s r eport
and recommendation. O n October 18, 2019, Chief Judge S. Maurice Hicks, Jr. of
the Western District issued an order adopting the magistrate judge’s findings.
After receiving notice of the Bankruptcy Court order of discipline, the ODC
filed a petitio n to initiate reciprocal discipline proceedings, pursuant to Supreme

3 Respondent has not yet sought reinstatement to practice in Bankruptcy Court.

4

Court Rule XIX, § 21. 4 A copy of the order issued by Judge Summerhays was
attached to the petition, as well as the report and recommendation of the magistrate
judge and the order issued by Judge Hicks. On January 10, 2020, this court rendered
an order giving respondent thirty days to demonstrate why the imposition of identical
discipline would be unwarranted.
Respondent timely filed a response in which he asserts that this court should
not impose reciprocal discipline because he has already been harshly sanctioned by
the Bankruptcy Court. Moreover, he points out that the Western District has already
held a hearing in this matter and ruled that additional discipline was not warranted
because the suspension, sanctions, and remedial measures imposed by the
Bankruptcy Court were sufficient punishment and would prevent future misconduct.
Respondent concludes that the ruling of the Western District, his satisfaction of all
of the requirements of the Bankruptcy Court and the Trustee, and the lack of a nexus
between his bankruptcy work and his day-to-day law practice are all “extraordinary
circumstances” that should lead this court to reject reciprocal discipline of a ninety-
day suspension.

DISCUSSION
The standard for imposition of discipline on a reciprocal basis is set forth in
Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21(D). That rule provides:
Discipline to be Imposed. Upon the expiration of thirty
days from service of the notice pursuant to the provisions
of paragraph B, this court shall impose the identical
discipline … unless disciplinary counsel or the lawyer
demonstrates, or this court finds that it clearly appears
upon the face of the record from which the discipline is
predicated, that:

4 Previously, Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21(A) was predicated upon the imposition of discipline
“by another state disciplinary authority.” Effective May 15, 2019, the rule was amended to include
discipline imposed “by another state or federal disciplinary authority...” [Emphasis added.]

5

(1) The procedure was so lacking in notice or opportunity
to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due
process; or
(2) Based on the record created by the jurisdiction that
imposed the discipline, there was such infirmity of
proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the
clear conviction that the court could not, consistent
with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that
subject; or
(3) The imposition of the same discipline by the court
would result in grave injustice or be offensive to the
public policy of the jurisdiction; or
(4) The misconduct established warrants substantially
different discipline in this state; …

If this court determines that any of those elements exists,
this court shall enter such other order as it deems
appropriate. The burden is on the party seeking different
discipline in this jurisdiction to demonstrate that the
imposition of the same discipline is not appropriate.

The r ecord indicates that respondent has served the ninety -day suspension
imposed by the Bankruptcy Court as well as a lengthy additional period of
suspension. In addition, he has paid a substantial fine, disgorged all fees and
expenses he collected in the eleven cases at issue , and implemented remedial
measures designed to ensure compliance with the credit counseling requirements of
the Bankruptcy Code. Finally, respondent has offered credible assurances that he
will not engage in similar misconduct in the future. Considering these
circumstances, the Western District determined that no additional discipline was
necessary.
We agree and likewise find the imposition of additional discipline is not
warranted. See, e.g., In re: Hartley, 03-2828 (La. 4/2/04), 869 So. 2d 799 (holding
that not every violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct warrants the imposition
of formal discipline). Accordingly, while we caution respondent to avoid similar
professional lapses in the future, we decline to impose any additional discipline
based on the unique facts presented in this matter.

6

DECREE
Considering the Petition to Initiate Reciprocal Discipline Proceedings filed by
the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the record filed herein, it is ordered that no
additional discipline be imposed upon respondent.