In Re: Fred C. Lebleu, III

Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 22, 2020
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: FRED C. LEBLEU, III
No.2020-B-01162
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN
RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
December 22, 2020
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
12/22/2020 “See News Release 050 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents.”

SU
PREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO.
2020-B-1162
I
N RE: FRED C. LeBLEU, III
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, Fred C. LeBleu, III, an attorney
licensed to practice law in Louisiana.
UNDE
RLYING FACTS
On December 3, 2017, respondent was arrested for possession of marijuana
and cocaine. On May 14, 2018, respondent enrolled in an eighteen-month pre -trial
intervention program in lieu of prosecution of the criminal charges. The record of
this matter contains an undated letter from the district attorney’s office indicating
respondent successfully completed the program.
On December 11, 2017, respondent self-reported his arrest to the ODC. Soon
thereafter, respondent contacted the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program
(“JLAP”) and scheduled an evaluation at Palmetto Addiction Recovery Center.
Palmetto evaluated respondent between January 8, 2018 and January 11,
2018. According to this evaluation, respondent meets the criteria for severe alcohol
use disorder and moderate cocaine use disorder. Palmetto recommended respondent
complete a long-term inpatient treatment program and then sign a five-year recovery
agreement with JLAP. Respondent entered Palmetto on February 19, 2018 to begin
his inpatient treatment and was successfully discharged on May 3, 2018. On May
8, 2018, respondent executed a five-year JLAP recovery agreement.
12/22/2020

2

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In September 2018, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging
that his conduct violated Rules 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional
Conduct) and 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the
lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct. In his answer, respondent admitted he violated the Rules of Professional
Conduct as alleged. After providing a detailed explanation of the events leading up
to his arrest, a summary of his recovery efforts, and his progress in the district
attorney’s pre-trial intervention program, respondent requested a mitigation hearing.

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, the
hearing committee found respondent’s demeanor, remorsefulness, and sincerity to
be impressive. Respondent self -reported his arrest to the ODC and has complied
with the ODC’s recommendations from that point forward. Respondent has also
complied with every requirement imposed upon him by JLAP. The committee
emphasized the fact that respondent was already sober when he entered Palmetto for
inpatient treatment, which resulted in his s uccessful completion of the program in
72 days instead of the normal 90 days. Since his release from inpatient treatment,
respondent has been required by his JLAP agreement to attend Alcoholics
Anonymous (“AA”) meetings and to be randomly tested for alcohol and drugs. To
date, respondent has complied with these requirements, and all of his alcohol and
drug tests have been negative. The committee also noted that respondent’s
misconduct did not directly involve his law practice. Two other attorneys, David
Green through live testimony and Jennifer Jones by letter, indicated they saw no
evidence of respondent’s substance use disorder affecting his work. He successfully
returned to his law practice after completing inpatient treatment, and he has

3

successfully completed the pre -trial intervention program relative to his criminal
charges.
Respondent’s ex-wife also testified at the hearing. She described a good
relationship with respondent, with whom she shares joint custody of their two small
children. They see each other regularly because of their children, and she is an
excellent source of support in his recovery. However, she testified that she will seek
sole custody of the children if his drinking and drug use becomes a problem again.
Next, the committee heard from attorney David Green, who rents office space
to respondent. He has known respondent for fifteen years and described respondent
as a “good practicing lawyer that was always in court when he was supposed to be.”
Mr. Green was a narcotics police officer before becoming an attorney, which lent
credence to his testimony about respondent’s behavior and the effect of his substance
use disorder on his law practice. According to Mr. Green, respondent’s substance
use disorder did not affect his law pr actice. He also believes respondent, since
completing inpatient treatment, is on the right track and is taking care of his work
and clients. Mr. Green believes respondent should be allowed to continue practicing
law moving forward. Because of his background in law enforcement, the committee
found Mr. Green to be a good judge of character and to possess unique knowledge
relevant to this matter.
Finally, the committee heard from Buddy Stockwell, JLAP’s executive
director. The committee found his testimon y to be powerful. Mr. Stockwell
described respondent as “someone who is really doing the right thing” with his
recovery. He noted how pro-active respondent was in immediately contacting JLAP
after his arrest and considers respondent to be “wonderfully compliant in the JLAP
program.” According to Mr. Stockwell, all of respondent’s sixteen random drug
screens have been negative, and respondent’s record of checking in every day is
exemplary as he has only missed four check -ins out of 365 days. He attends A A

4

meetings as required, has obtained an AA sponsor, and has begun working the 12
steps of AA. Mr. Stockwell considers respondent to be genuine about and dedicated
to his recovery.
Based on this evidence and the other evidence in the record, the committee
determined respondent has begun to sincerely address the addiction issues that led
to his misconduct. The committee also noted that respondent admitted to violating
the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.
The committee then determined respondent k nowingly and intentionally
violated duties owed to the public and the legal profession. While respondent’s
misconduct caused no actual harm to his clients, it did cause actual harm to the legal
profession. Relying on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawy er Sanctions, the
committee determined the baseline sanction is suspension.
In mitigation, the committee found the following: the absence of a prior
disciplinary record, full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board and a
cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, character or reputation, mental
disability or chemical dependency, and remorse. In further mitigation, the
committee noted that respondent did not injure any client or person and has fully
complied with his JLAP agreement. The committee did not specifically mention the
presence of aggravating factors other than to note that respondent engaged in illegal
conduct.
After further considering this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the committee recommended respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for two years, fully deferred, subject to his continued compliance
with his current JLAP agreement.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s
report.

5

Disciplinary Board Recommendation
After determining that the hearing committee’s factual findings are not
manifestly erroneous and are supported by the record, the disciplinary board adopted
same. Based on these facts and respondent’s admissions, the board determined the
violations of Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct have been
established.
The board then determined respondent knowingly and intentionally violated
duties owed to the public and the legal profession. The board agreed with the
committee that, al though respondent did not harm any clients, he did cause actual
harm to the legal profession. The board also agreed with the committee that the
baseline sanction is suspension.
In aggravation, the board found only illegal conduct. In mitigation, the board
found the absence of a prior disciplinary record, personal or emotional problems,
full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board or a cooperative attitude toward the
proceedings, character or reputation, mental disability or chemical dependency,
imposition of other penalties or sanctions, and remorse.
After further considering this court’s prior jurisprudence address ing similar
misconduct, the board recommended respondent be suspended from the practice of
law for two years, fully deferred, subject t o a period of unsupervised probation to
coincide with the remainder of his JLAP agreement.
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

6

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
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 was arrested for
possession of marijuana and cocaine. Respondent admitted to violating the Rules of
Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges, and the record supports such
a finding.
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 knowingly, if not intentionally, violated duties owed to the public
and the legal profession. While his illegal conduct did not cause actual harm, the
potential for significant harm existed. We agree with the hearing committee and the
disciplinary board that the baseline sanction is suspension.
Respondent’s illegal conduct is the sole aggravating factor . However, the
record supports several mitigating factors, including the a bsence of a prior
disciplinary record, full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board and a

7

cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, character or reputation, mental
disability or chemical dependency including alcoholism or drug abuse, and remorse.
In further mitigation, we note that respondent self -reported his arrest to the
ODC and immediately sought help through JLAP. He agreed to be evaluated by
Palmetto Addiction Recovery Center, and this evaluation indicated that he meets the
criteria for severe alcohol use disorder and moderate cocaine use disorder.
Respondent then sought inpatient treatment at Palmetto, which he successfully
completed. Palmetto recommended respondent sign a five -year JLAP recovery
agreement, and he complied on May 8, 2018. Respondent’s JLAP agreement
requires him to attend AA meetings and submit to random alcohol and drug tests,
and he is in full compliance with this agreement.
In recommending a sanction, both the committee and the board found
guidance from In re: Bertucci, 08-1349 (La. 9/26/08), 990 So. 2d 1275. In Bertucci,
an attorney was arrested for unlawful possession of various drugs and drug
paraphernalia. The attorney immediately sought both inpatient and outpatient
treatment for his polysubstance dependence. He successfully completed a pre -trial
diversion program, and the criminal charges against him were dismissed. He also
entered into a JLAP agreement, which lasted for a total of four years. We suspended
the attorney from the practice of law for two years, fu lly deferred, subject to two
years of unsupervised probation with the condition that the attorney comply with a
new two-year JLAP agreement. We agree with the committee and the board that
Bertucci is instructive. Respondent and Mr. Bertucci engaged in similar misconduct,
which resulted in their arrests. They both immediately sought help for their
substance use disorders and were successful in their recovery efforts, including
compliance with their JLAP recovery agreements.

8

In light of the above, we will adopt the board’s recommendation and suspend
respondent from the practice of law for two years, fully deferred, subject to a period
of unsupervised probation to coincide with the remainder of his JLAP agreement.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee
and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Fred C. LeBleu,
III, Louisiana Bar Roll number 2 8654, be and he hereby is suspended from t he
practice of law for a period of two years . This suspension shall be deferred in its
entirety, subject to a period of unsupervised probation coinciding with the remainder
of respondent’s five -year recovery agreement with the Judges and Lawyers
Assistance Program, which he executed on May 8, 2018 . The probationary period
shall commence from the date respondent and the ODC sign a formal probation plan.
Any failure of respondent to comply with the conditions of the probation plan, or
any misconduct during the probationary period, may be grounds for making the
deferred suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate. 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.