In Re: Rudy W. Gorrell, Jr.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
November 10, 2020
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: RUDY W. GORRELL, JR.
No.2020-B-00993
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 10, 2020
Public reprimand ordered. See per curiam.
Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., dissents, finding the discipline imposed too lenient.
BJJ
JLW
JDH
JTG
JHB
11/10/2020 "See News Release 043 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

11/10/20
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
20-B-0993
I
N RE: RUDY W. GORRELL, JR.
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
T his disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Rudy W. Gorrell, Jr., an attorney
licensed to practice law in Louisiana.
UNDE
RLYING FACTS
Respondent represented Brienne Russ in two separate custody cases in
Orleans Civil District Court. One case was against her former husband, Wendell
Russ, and the second was against her former husband, Michael Hughes. Both fathers
were represented by New Orleans attorney Terrance Prout.
Mr. Prout subpoenaed expert witness Dr. Lisa Tropez-Arceneaux, a pediatric
psychologist, to provide testimony in both cases, and she appeared at Orleans Civil
District Court on three separate occasions to provide expert testimony. Each time,
respondent approac hed her, either in court or outside the courtroom, and made
statements to her that made her feel intimidated.
On the first occasion, on October 27, 2016, respondent approached Dr.
Tropez-Arceneaux and told her the following: “I’m coming for you;” “You’re not
needed here;” “You’re not going to get on the stand;” and “I’m going to make you
sit here all day.”

2

The hearing was continued to November 3, 2016. That morning before the
hearing started, respondent approached Dr. Tropez -Arceneaux again, stating the
following: “I’m not sure why you’re here” and “You’re not going to testify again
today.” When Dr. Tropez -Arceneaux advised respondent that she had been
subpoenaed to testify and intended to comply, respondent answered by saying,
“Well, you can’t testify to the child’s anxiety, and I am going to get you.”
Respondent also once again told her, “I don’t know why you are coming up, because
we don’t need you to come up here [to testify].”
The hearing was again continued, this time to January 5, 2017. On that date,
respondent again approached Dr. Tropez -Arceneaux and said, “You better stop
messing with me, I will get you.” Mr. Hughes was sitting next to Dr. Tropez -
Arceneaux when respondent made this statement.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In April 2019, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging his
conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct:
Rules 3.5(d) (engaging in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal), 4.4(a) (in
representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose
other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person), 8.4(a) (violation of the
Rules of Professional Conduct), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice). Respondent, through counsel, answered the formal
charges and denied any misconduct. Accordingly, the matter proceeded to a formal
hearing on the merits.

D
R. LISA TROPEZ-ARCENEAUX’S TESTIMONY
Dr. Tropez -Arceneaux testified that the October 27, 2016 encounter with
respondent occurred in the courtroom while she was waiting to testify. Respondent

3

told her that she did not need to be there and that he was coming to get her. Then he
told her she was probably going to sit there all day because he was not going to allow
her to testify. The exchange confused her because she could not tell whether
respondent was joking.
The November 3, 2016 incident occurred in the courthouse parking lot while
she and respondent were walking to the building. Respondent approached her and
asked why she was there, telling her she did not need to be there. She told respondent
that she was subpoenaed. He again told her she did not need to be there because she
was not going to testify. He also told her that, even if she testified, she would not
be able to talk about the child’s anxiety, which is when she began to get
uncomfortable. When she saw Mr. Prout, she told him what had just happened with
respondent.
On January 5, 2017, respondent approached her while she was sitting on a
bench outside of the courtroom with Mr. Hughes. Respondent told her that he was
going to get her. When she said, “Excuse me?” to respondent, Mr. Hughes looked
up. When respondent noticed Mr. Hughes, he changed the subject. She took
respondent’s initial statement to mean that he was looking for something to discredit
her so she would not be able to testify. Since this was the third incident with
respondent, Dr. Tropez -Arceneaux did not take the statement as a joke and was
shaken up. She told Mr. Prout about the incident immediately.
She believes respondent was trying to intimidate her on each of the three
occasions. However, respondent’s behavior never dissuaded her from testifying.
She did indicate, though, that she felt physically afraid of respondent at times. After
the third incident, Mr. Prout asked her to execute an affidavit describing what had
occurred each time, which she did.

M
ICHAEL HUGHES’ TESTIMONY

4

Mr. Hughes testified that he was sitting outside the courtroom with Dr.
Tropez-Arceneaux on January 5, 2017 when respondent spoke to her. According to
Mr. Hughes, respondent told Dr. Tropez -Arceneaux to stop messing with him and
that he was going to get her. When respondent noticed Mr. Hughes sitting there,
respondent changed the subject as if he were uncomf ortable. Respondent’s whole
mannerism changed, and then respondent walked away. Mr. Hughes also indicated
that respondent’s statement to Dr. Tropez-Arceneaux shocked him.

RESPONDENT’S TESTIMONY
Respondent testified that the only thing he said to Dr. Tr opez-Arceneaux on
October 27, 2016 was that she could be on call instead of sitting around waiting to
testify. He never said anything to her about coming for her, about her not needing
to be there, or about how he was going to make her sit there all day. He denied
threatening or harassing her. Regarding the November 3, 2016 exchange,
respondent indicated that he told Dr. Tropez-Arceneaux that the child’s anxiety she
was going to testify about occurred two years prior. Finally regarding the January
5, 2017 incident, respondent denied making the statement to Dr. Tropez-Arceneaux
and indicated he was baffled by the accusation. Respondent also indicated that Dr.
Tropez-Arceneaux never expressed to him that he was making her uncomfortable or
intimidating her.
Respondent also testified that he believes the formal charges stem from the
contentiousness between him and Mr. Prout regarding the custody cases. He denied
ever doing anything unethical in the cases and denied threatening Dr. Tropez -
Arceneaux. He also indicated that he cannot reconcile the differences between his
version of events and Dr. Tropez -Arceneaux’s because he cannot “defend the
falsities.” He could not think of any reason why Dr. Tropez -Arceneaux would lie
about him.

5

6

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the
hearing committee indicated that its findings and conclusions rest primarily on its
credibility determinations. The committee then determined that Dr. Tropez -
Arceneaux was credible but respondent was not credible. Based on these credibility
determinations, the committee found that respondent made the alleged statements to
Dr. Tropez-Arceneaux, which caused her to feel intimidated and had no substantial
purpose other than to delay or burden her. The committee noted that respondent
repeatedly denied making the statements but offered no explanation or reconciliation
for the polar-opposite testimony given by him versus Dr. Tropez-Arceneaux. Near
the conclusion of the hearing, the committee expressly pointed out the opposing
testimony and pointedly asked respondent to provide an explanation. However,
respondent could not provide any explanation other than to continue to contend that
he testified truthfully, thereby implying Dr. Tropez-Arceneaux had not. While the
committee further found that respondent did not intentionally seek to disrupt the
underlying proceeding by making his statements to Dr. Tropez-Arceneaux, it found
that respondent knew or should have known that his statements were improper under
the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Based on these factual findings, the committee determined respondent
violated Rules 4.4(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d) but not Rule 3.5(d). Respondent made
several statements on three, separate court dates to Dr. Tropez -Arceneaux, which
statements had no purpose other than to delay, burden, and intimidate her. This
conduct violated Rules 4.4(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d). However, the committee
determined that respondent did not intend to disrupt the procee dings; thus, he did
not violate Rule 3.5(d).
The committee then determined respondent knowingly violated duties owed
to the legal system. Although respondent’s conduct caused no actual harm, it had

7

the potential to cause harm in that Dr. Tropez -Arceneaux felt he was trying to
intimidate her, thereby potentially affecting her expert testimony, which could have
had a negative and harmful effect on the proceedings and opposing parties. Relying
on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined
the baseline sanction is suspension.
In aggravation, the committee found a pattern of misconduct, refusal to
acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, and substantial experience in the
practice of law (admitted 1991). In mitigation, the committee found the absence of
a prior disciplinary record, full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board, and a
cooperative attitude toward the proceedings. The committee then determined
respondent’s clean disciplinary record in nearly thirty ye ars of practice caused the
factors to weigh in favor of mitigation.
After further considering this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the committee recommended respondent be publicly reprimanded.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the committee’s report
and recommendation. Therefore, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G), the
disciplinary board submitted the committee’s report to the court for review.
1

DISCUSSION
Bar disciplinary matters fall within the original jurisdiction of this court. La.
Const. art. V, § 5(B). Consequently, we act as triers of fact and conduct an
independent review of the record to determine whether the alleged misconduct has
been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re: Banks, 09-1212 (La. 10/2/09),
18 So. 3d 57. While we are not bound in any way by the findings and

1 As amended effective May 15, 2019, Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G) provides that “[i]f the
parties do not file objections to the hearing committee report, the board shall promptly submit the
hearing committee’s report to the court.”

8

recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, we have held the
manifest error standard is applicable to the committee’s factual findings. See In re:
Caulfield, 96 -1401 (La. 11/25/96), 683 So. 2d 714; In re: Pardue , 93-2865 (La.
3/11/94), 633 So. 2d 150.
The record of this matter supports a finding that respondent, on three
occasions, made statements to Dr. Tropez -Arceneaux that were meant to delay,
burden, and intimidate her. This conduct is a violation of the Rules of Professional
Conduct as found by the hearing committee.
Having found evidence of professional misconduct, we now turn to a
determination of the appropriate sanction for respondent’s actions. In determining
a sanction, we are mindful that disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain
high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession,
and deter future misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 S o. 2d 1173
(La. 1987). The discipline to be imposed depends upon the facts of each case and
the seriousness of the offenses involved considered in light of any aggravating and
mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So. 2d 520
(La. 1984).
Respondent knowingly violated duties owed to his client, the public, the legal
system, and the legal profession. Although his conduct did not cause any actual
harm, it had the potential to harm respondent’s client, the opposing parties, and the
legal system. We agree with the committee that the baseline sanction is suspension.
We also agree with the committee’s determination of aggravating and mitigating
factors.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, we find guidance from the
case of In re: Estiverne , 99-0949 (La. 9/24/99), 741 So. 2d 649. After his client
received an unfavorable ruling in a worker’s compensation matter, Mr. Estiverne
wrote a letter to the hearing officer accusing him of disregarding “all the laws in the

9

books to satisfy your own fantasy” and suggesting that he “refrain from continuing
the kind of rape you have been perpetrating against the law.” We concluded that
Mr. Estiverne’s conduct violated Rule 4.4 and warranted a public reprimand.
In light of this case law, as well as respondent’s long career with no other
disciplinary issues, we will adopt the committee’s recommendation and publicly
reprimand respondent.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee,
and considering the record, it is ordered that Rudy W. Gorrell, Jr. , Louisiana Bar
Roll number 20832, be and he hereby is publicly reprimanded. All costs and
expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme
Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date
of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.