In Re: Amy Elizabeth Bateman

Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 08, 2020
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: AMY ELIZABETH BATEMAN
No.2020-B-01140
_ _ _
_ _ _
IN R
E: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
December 08, 2020
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
JBM
BJJ
JLW
SJC
JTG
WJC
12/08/2020 “See News Release 047 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents.”

12/08/20
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
20-B-1140
I
N RE: AMY ELIZABETH BATEMAN
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Amy Elizabeth Bateman, now
known as Amy Champagne, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana.
UNDE
RLYING FACTS
At approximately 10:00 p.m. on February 25, 2018, respondent was driving
her SUV eastbound on Interstate 10 in Metairie. Her nine-year old daughter was a
passenger in the vehicle. As respondent exited the interstate at Veterans Memorial
Boulevard, she failed to negotiate a curve and struck a utility pole.
Trooper Garrett Jackson of the Louisiana State Police investigated the
accident. Respondent told Trooper Jackson that she picked up her daughter in Baton
Rouge and was on her way home when she struck the pole after having some steering
issues with her vehicle. While speaking with respondent, Trooper Jackson detected
a moderate odor of an alcoholic beverage about her person, and observed that she
had watery, bloodshot eyes and swaying balance. Respondent initially denied any
consumption of alcohol, but she later told Trooper Jackson she had consumed about
half a beer around noon on the day before the accident. Respondent agreed to submit
to a field sobriety test and a Breathalyzer test. She performed poorly on the field
sobriety test and the Breathalyzer test showed her blood alcohol level was .117g%.

2

Respondent was arrested on charges of DWI, failure to maintain control, and having
an expired registration certificate.
After obtaining the results of the Breathalyzer test, Trooper Jackson asked
respondent a series of standard interview questions. In response to these questions,
respondent said that she consumed alcohol after the accident at a hotel across the
street from the accident scene. Respondent stated that she could not remember the
name of the hotel or what alcoholic beverages she had consumed.
After respondent was transported to jail, Trooper Jackson returned to the
scene of the accident and determined that the Wyndham Garden Inn is the only hotel
located within walking distance which serves alcohol. Trooper Jackson inquired
whether respondent had been to the hotel that evening, but the staff did not recognize
her and indicated it was hotel policy to refuse alcohol to patrons with children.
In March 2018, the ODC referred respondent to the Judges and Lawyers
Assistance Program (“JLAP”) for an independent evaluation. After some delay on
respondent’s part, she was evaluated by Dr. Jamie Landry, Ph.D. in June 2018, at
about the same time that she was accepted into a pre -trial diversion program to
resolve the DWI charge.
Respondent informed Dr. Landry that prior to her DWI arrest on February 25,
2018, she had a total of three or fewer mimosas over the course of two hours at a
late brunch with her husband to celebrate her birthday. She stated that the wait at
the restaurant was long and the order was incorrect, which led them to stay longer
and consume more alcohol than she might have otherwise. She went home for a
while and then decided to run errands around 7:00 p.m. She indicated that she did
not feel impaired. While driving, she experienced a tire blowout. She then
reportedly walked across the street to a hotel to call her husband, but a State Trooper
arrived and began to ask her questions. After a field sobriety test, respondent was
arrested for DWI. She noted that her Breathalyzer results were 0.11.

3

Following the evaluation, Dr. Landry issued her report, in which she observed
“inaccuracies” between respondent’s Breathalyzer results and her description of her
drinking on the day of her arrest.1 Accordingly, Dr. Landry deferred a diagnosis and
recommended that respondent attend a one -day multidisciplinary assessment to
obtain collateral information and additional testing to rule out a substance use
disorder. In July 2018, JLAP endorsed Dr. Landry’s recommendation to respondent,
and provided her with a list of JLAP-approved facilities where she could obtain the
assessment. However, respondent ultimately did not obtain a one -day
multidisciplinary assessment, claiming that it was too costly. She also asserted that
she had successfully completed the pre -trial diversion program in October 2018,
following which the criminal charges were dismissed, and that such participation
should be sufficient to satisfy JLAP.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In September 2018, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging
that her conduct as set forth above violated the following provisions of the Rules of
Professional Conduct: Rules 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct),
8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer), and 8.4(c ) (engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). R espondent answered the formal
charges and acknowledged her DWI arrest. She also stated that she was “incredibly
sorry for the incident” and accepted “full responsibility” for her behavior.

1 Respondent has given at least two other versions of her drinking on the day of her arrest. In June
2018, a hearing was conducted before an administrative law judge concerning the suspension of
respondent’s driver’s license after her DWI arrest. The ALJ’s report indicates that respondent
testified during the hearing that her daughter was not with her at the time of the accident; that she
went to the Wyndham alone; and that she drank three gin and tonics at the bar, which were paid
for by another patron. T he ALJ noted that this testimony contradicted the statements respondent
gave to Trooper Jackson during the investigation and was not credible testimony.
In December 2018, the ODC took respondent’s sworn statement, during which she testified
that she went to the Wyndham after the accident “and a guy bought me a drink. I might’ve taken
a couple of sips of it.”

4

Formal Hearing
Following the filing of respondent’s answer, the matter was set for a formal
hearing before the hearing committee on April 8, 2019 . Both parties introduced
documentary evidence, and the ODC called Trooper Jackson and JLAP Director
Buddy Stockwell to testify before the hearing committee. Respondent called no
witnesses, but she testified on her own behalf and on cross-examination by the ODC.

TESTIMONY OF TROOPER JACKSON
Trooper Jackson testified that he investigated respondent’s accident.
Respondent informed Trooper Jackson that mechanical issues had caused her to hit
a utility pole. While speaking to respondent, Tr ooper Jackson noticed the odor of
alcohol, but she said she had not been drinking at all that day. Respondent later said
that she had consumed alcohol the day before the accident, around noon. Trooper
Jackson conducted a field sobriety test and detected impairment of respondent and
placed her under arrest. He then administered a Breathalyzer test to determine her
blood alcohol concentration, which was .117g%. The test results confirmed Trooper
Jackson’s suspicions of impairment.
After the Breathalyzer test, respondent’s story changed again. She informed
Trooper Jackson that she had consumed alcohol at a hotel after the crash, although
she did not know the location of the hotel or the kind of alcohol consumed. Upon
booking respondent, Trooper Jackson went to the closest hotel to the accident scene,
Wyndham Garden, and inquired whether respondent had been there. The staff did
not recognize respondent and said it was hotel policy not to serve alcohol to patrons
accompanied by children.
Trooper Jackson testified that respondent’s testimony at her driver’s license
administrative hearing was inconsistent with her statement to him in the following
respects: (1) that she went alone to the Wyndham hotel; (2) that her daughter was

5

not present at the time of the accident; and (3) that she consumed three gin and tonics
at the hotel. The ODC deposed respondent in December 2018, and she testified that
a gentleman bought her a drink at the hotel, but Trooper Jackson did not recall her
telling him that information.

TESTIMONY OF BUDDY STOCKWELL
Mr. Stockwell testified that respondent contacted JLAP on April 12, 2018 and
was given a referral for the lowest level evaluation. This type of evaluation is
dependent upon the evaluated person “being absolutely truthful and candid.” After
the initial evaluation by Dr. Jamie Landry, she found “inaccuracies” in respondent’s
report and thus she could not rule out a substance use disorder. Dr. Landry therefore
recommended that respondent obtain a one -day evaluation at a JLAP -approved
facility to obtain collateral information and do more intensive objective testing. On
July 19, 2018, JLAP informed respondent that it had adopted Dr. Landry’s
recommendation for a one-day evaluation. Respondent called JLAP the next week
and said that the one -day evaluation was too expensive and asked what would
happen if she did not do the assessment. This was respondent’s last communication
with JLAP.
Mr. Stockwell testified that the cost of a one -day evaluation ranges from
$1,000 to $1,500. This type of evaluation is not covered by insurance unless there
is a diagnosis requiring further treatment. However, JLAP offers financial assistance
for the cost of the evaluation if there is a proven hardship on the evaluated person.
According to Mr. St ockwell, JLAP has “never had someone not be able to get the
assessments done, if in fact they really were dedicated to having them done.”
Mr. Stockwell testified that the JLAP program is not equivalent to that offered
by the diversionary programs run by the district attorney offices in the state and that
comparing one to the other is “completely apples and oranges.” Mr. Stockwell

6

testified that lawyers and other safety sensitive workers have to be evaluated and
treated “at a much higher level” to ensure they are not “impaired in the practice of
law or flying an airplane or operating on patients,” whereas a diversion program
serves the general public and is “a function of the punitive aspect of getting the
DWI.” JLAP informed respondent in June 2018 that he r participation in the
Jefferson Parish District Attorney’s Office pre-trial intervention program could not
be considered compliant with JLAP’s standards.

TESTIMONY OF RESPONDENT
Respondent admitted in her testimony that she was driving under the influence
of alcohol on February 25, 2018, and that her conduct violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct. Respondent conceded that she had not been truthful with
Trooper Jackson during her interview or with Dr. Landry during her JLAP
evaluation.
Respondent testified that she successfully completed the Jefferson Parish
District Attorney’s Office pre -trial intervention program for first offense DWI,
which included twelve hours of educational classes about drug and alcohol abuse,
restorative classes, four mont hs of hair testing, twice daily alcohol monitoring for
four months, sixteen hours of community service, and attendance at a MADD panel.
She testified that she believes she “can move on” from the mistakes she made on the
night of her arrest and “participation in the diversion program is a huge factor there.”

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the
hearing committee made the following factual findings:
1. Respondent knowingly operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol on February 25, 2018.

7

2. Respondent knowingly made false statements to a law enforcement officer
investigating the incident.
3. Respondent intentionally and knowingly failed to comply with the
recommendation of JLAP that she undergo a one -day multidisciplinary
assessment to determine if she has a substance use disorder.
4. Respondent knowingly engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation by omitting material information and making
false and misleading statements to tribunals and medical professionals and
while deposed under oath.
Based on these findings, the committee determined respondent violated Rules
8.4(a), 8.4(b) and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.
The committee found that respondent violated duties owed to the public and
the legal profession. She acted knowingly in operating a vehicle while under the
influence of alcohol with her nine-year old daughter as a passenger, and in providing
false information to the investigating officer. Subsequently, respondent omitted
material information and provided false and misleading information to the
Department of Public Safety tribunal, the JLAP medical professional, and to the
ODC during her December 14, 2018 depositi on. Respondent’s misconduct caused
potential physical harm to both her and her daughter, and potential harm to the
profession. The applicable baseline sanction is suspension.
In aggravation, the committee found substantial experience in the practice of
law (admitted 2005). The committee also noted as aggravating factors the following:
(1) the presence of a minor child in the vehicle respondent was operating in an
impaired state; (2) respondent supplied less than truthful information to law
enforcement; and (3) respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC by failing to
comply with JLAP’s recommendation of a one-day multidisciplinary assessment to

8

determine if she has a substance use disorder. In mitigation, the committee found
the absence of a prior disciplinary record and remorse.
After further considering this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the committee recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for one year and one day, with all but ninety days deferr ed, subject
to a one-year period of probation with the following conditions: (1) respondent shall
complete the JLAP recommended one -day multidisciplinary assessment within
ninety days of the final ruling in this matter, and (2) respondent shall refrain from
violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct during the probationary period, in
default of which the deferred portion of the suspension will be made immediately
executory. The committee also recommended that respondent be assessed with all
costs of this proceeding.
The ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s report, asserting that
the appropriate sanction in this matter is a one year and one day suspension, with no
portion deferred.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation
After review, the disciplinary board determined that the hearing committee’s
findings of fact are supported by the record and do not appear to be manifestly
erroneous. The board also determined that the committee correctly applied the Rules
of Professional Conduct.
The board determined respondent violated duties owed to the public and the
legal profession. She acted knowingly, if not intentionally. She caused potential
serious harm to herself and the public, including her nine -year old daughter, by
driving while intoxicated, and caused actual physical damage to her vehicle. Her
inconsistent statements to Trooper Jackson required him to undertake additional
steps to investigate the accident . Additionally, respondent’s public criminal

9

behavior reflects adversely upon the profession as a whole. After considering the
ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , the board determined that the
applicable baseline sanction is suspension.
In aggravation, the board found the following factors are supported by the
record: a dishonest or selfish motive, submission of false evidence, false statements,
or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process, substantial experience
in the practice of law, and illegal conduct. In addition to these aggravating f actors
which are specifically listed in the ABA Standards, the board found another
significant aggravating circumstance is that respondent was driving while
intoxicated with her nine-year old daughter in the car. In mitigation, the board found
the absence of a prior disciplinary record.
After further considering this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, a majority of the board recommended respondent be suspended from
the practice of law for one year and one day, with no period of deferral. One board
member agreed with the hearing committee’s recommendation of sanction. The
board further recommended respondent be assessed with the costs and expenses of
this proceeding.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the disciplinary board’s
recommendation.

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
recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, we have held the

10

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 committed
criminal conduct by driving while intoxicated. Thereafter, she engaged in
dishonesty and misrepresentation by giving multiple versions of the events in
question to law enforcement, the ODC, and the JLAP evaluator. This misconduct
amounts to a violation of Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct as charged.
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 So. 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 violated duties owed to the public and the legal profession,
causing the potential for serious harm. Fortunately, no actual harm resulted.
Respondent’s misconduct was at least knowing. The baseline sanction for this type
of misconduct is suspension. The record supports the aggravating and mitigating
factors found by the disciplinary board.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, we find guidance from the
case of In re: Baer, 09-1795 (La. 11/20/09), 21 So. 3d 941. In Baer, we stated the
following with respect to appropriate sanctions for DWI offenses:

11

We have imposed sanctions ranging from actual periods
of suspension to fully deferred suspensions in prior cases
involving attorneys who drive while under the influence
of alcohol. However, as a general rule, we tend to impose
an actual suspension in those instances in which multiple
DWI offenses are at issue, as well as in cases in which the
DWI stems from a substance abuse problem that
appears to remain unresolved. [Emphasis added.]

Following her psychological evaluation, JLAP recommended a one-day
multidisciplinary assessment to obtain collateral information and additional testing
to rule out a substance use disorder. To date, respondent has not complied with this
recommendation. Pursuant to our guidance in Baer, an actual suspension is therefore
warranted. The sanction of a one year and one day suspension means respondent
will have to file a formal application for reinstatement in the event she wishes to
return to the practice of law. This will ensure that the public is protected as before
respondent can be reinstated to the practice of law, she will have to address the
question of whether she has a substance abuse disorder, and, if so, show an effort at
recovery.
Based on this reasoning, we will adopt the board’s recommendation and
suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee
and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Amy Elizabeth
Bateman, now known as Amy Champagne , Louisiana Bar Roll number 2 9752, be
and she hereby is suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. 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.