In Re: Samuel Robert Aucoin

Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 07, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: SAMUEL ROBERT AUCOIN
No. 2021-B-00847
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
December 07, 2021
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
PDG
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
12/07/2021 "See News Release 047 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
21-B-0847
I
N RE: SAMUEL ROBERT AUCOIN
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Samuel Robert Aucoin, an
attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently on interim suspension
for threat of harm to the public. In re: Aucoin, 20-0979 (La. 8/10/20), 300 So. 3d
838.1
UNDE
RLYING FACTS
In July 2019, Mindi Hunter, the MCLE Director for the Louisiana State Bar
Association (“LSBA”), reported the following to the ODC: Respondent had issues
fulfilling his MCLE obligation for 2018. As a result, Ms. Hunter agreed to allow
him to satisfy his entire 12.5 -hour obligation for that year via online CLE courses.
On June 27, 2019, respondent sent Ms. Hunter ten e-mails, each containing a
certificate of completion for an online CLE program of one or two hours. However,
it appeared to Ms. Hunter that the certificate of completion for course number
5193170101B, entitled “Behind the Wheel: Plaintiff’s Automotive Personal Injury
Cases” and provided by TRTCLE, had been altered to reflect respondent had
completed the course on June 26, 2019. Specifically, the date of completion was
1 In addition to the misconduct at issue here, the ODC based its petition for interim suspension on
several disciplinary complaints filed against respondent by clients who alleged that he collected
legal fees from them and then neglected their legal matters and failed to communicate with them.
Additionally, the ODC’s petition indicated respondent failed to cooperate with its investigations
and was charged with two misdemeanor counts of issuing worthless checks in January 2020.
12/07/21

2

handwritten instead of typed. Ms. Hunter contacted Mr. Fareed Issa at TRTCLE for
verification and learned that respondent had indeed taken the course, but in 2017, at
which time he received credit for it. However, TRTCLE had no record of respondent
taking the course for credit in 2019.
The ODC subpoenaed respondent to appear for a sworn statement on August
21, 2019. During his statement, respondent insisted that he had taken the TRTCLE
course at issue in 2019 and that he had no memory of having done so in 2017. When
shown the handwritten date on the certificate of completion, respondent testified that
the form was tendered from TRTCLE in such condition. The ODC requested that
respondent produce a copy of his credit card statement reflecting the date he paid for
the course, but he failed to comply with this request until the date of the formal
hearing in this matter.
After the sworn statement, the ODC spoke to Ms. Hunter again. She advised
that the course at issue was not offered by TRTCLE in 2019. Therefore, it was not
possible for respondent to have taken the course when he claimed.
As a result of his failure to satisfy his MCLE obligation for 2018, respondent
was declared ineligible to practice law on May 31, 2019. He did not restore his
eligibility to practice until August 23, 2019.
On June 25, 2019, while he was ineligible, respondent filed a motion in the
matter of Breaux v. Duho n, pending in Lafayette Parish. On June 17, 2019, he
notarized an affidavit in the same matter. On August 16, 2019, respondent filed an
amended petition in the matter of Courville v. Courville , pending in St. Landry
Parish. Also on August 16, 2019, a fi nal judgment signed by respondent was filed
in the matter of McKnight v. McKnight, pending in Iberia Parish.

3

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In November 2019, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging
that his conduct as set forth above violated the following provisions of the Rules of
Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1(c) (failure to pay bar dues, to pay the disciplinary
assessment, or to submit the trust account disclosure statement), 5.5(a) (engaging in
the unauthorized practice of law), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its
investigation), 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), and 8.4(c)
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).
Respondent answered the formal charges, e ssentially denying he engaged in
any misconduct. Accordingly, the matter proceeded to a formal hearing on the
merits, conducted by the hearing committee in October 2020.

Formal Hearing
Both respondent and the ODC introduced documentary evidence. The ODC
called Mr. Issa and Ms. Hunter to testify before the committee. Respondent did not
call any witnesses. However, he did testify on his own behalf and on cross-
examination by the ODC.

F
AREED ISSA’S TESTIMONY
Mr. Issa, TRTCLE’s customer service manager, testified that course number
5193170101B was only offered as an approved course in Louisiana in 2017.
TRTCLE’s records show respondent took this course on May 30, 2017, but the
records do not show respondent taking the course on June 26, 2019. Mr. Issa
explained that anyone who purchased and completed a course in the past can rewatch
the course at any time but will not get credit for the rewatch if the course is not
offered again for credit. The person can also reprint the uniform certificate of
attendance any time after completing the course, but the printout will always have

4

the date the course was initially completed typed on it. The date would not be
handwritten as it was on respondent’s uniform certificate of attendance. TRTCLE’s
records further show that, on June 26, 2019, respondent purchased two other courses
approved in Louisiana for 2019 and received credit for those two courses.

M
INDI HUNTER’S TESTIMONY
Ms. Hunter testified that respondent contacted her after he became ineligible
on May 31, 2019 for failing to comply with his MCLE requirements for 2018. The
LSBA’s hardship committee allowed him to take all of his 2018 hours online to
correct his ineligibility because he was unable to drive at the time. Ms. Hunter also
allowed respondent to email his certificates of completion for the courses instead of
waiting for the CLE sponsors to do so. However, the certificate of completion fo r
the course at issue seemed suspicious to her because the date of completion was
handwritten instead of typed. Upon further inspection, Ms. Hunter noticed that the
course number had a 2017 designation even though respondent claimed to have
taken the course in 2019. In fact, respondent had already received MCLE credit for
the course in 2017. Therefore, she contacted respondent and told him he would need
to take another course because that particular course would not count. Respondent
agreed to do so without any argument.

R
ESPONDENT’S TESTIMONY
Respondent verified that he did not argue with Ms. Hunter when she told him
the course at issue would not count and he would need to take a different course. He
immediately took another course to replace the course at issue. Respondent further
claimed that Ms. Hunter told him he could practice law once he had submitted all of
his certificates of completion to her. Therefore, he practiced law “a couple of times”

5

when he was still ineligible because he was “under the impression from Ms. Hunter”
that he was allowed to practice.
Contradicting his sworn statement testimony, respondent admitted he
handwrote the date on the certificate of completion for the course at issue “because
the date wasn’t appearing at the top.” He had no explanation why the date did not
print on this particular certificate of completion when it printed on the other
certificates of completion from TRTCLE courses. He also argued that he had no
way of knowing the course number indicated the course was from 2017. He denied
submitting a fraudulent certificate of completion for the course.
Regarding the final judgment in McKnight v. McKnight , respondent claimed
he signed the judgment before he became ineligible to practice law, but the opposing
party did not sign or submit the judgment to the court until after he was ineligible to
practice. Regardin g the motion in Breaux v. Duhon , respondent claimed he
presented the motion to the judge on June 17, 2019 because that is the date the judge
signed it. Then the judge filed it with the clerk’s office. He also admitted he
notarized an affidavit in the same matter on June 17, 2019. He did not address the
amended petition he filed in Courville v. Courville.

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the
hearing committee found that the ODC proved respondent knowingly engaged in the
practice of law while ineligible, submitted falsified evidence to the Committee on
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, and lied under oath in both his sworn
statement and at the hearing of this matter. More specifically, the committee found
that respondent was delinquent in fulfilling his MCLE requirements in 2018, which
resulted in his ineligibility to practice law beginning on May 31, 2019. Ms. Hunter
gave respondent permission to fulfill his 2018 MCLE requirements online and told

6

him he would become eligible to practice law again when his fulfillment of his 2018
MCLE requirements had been completed and processed. Respondent submitted an
altered and falsified certificate of completion for the course at issue. The certificate
of completion respondent presented to the Committee on Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education contained a handwritten date of June 26, 2019, but the course was
not offered by TRTCLE in 2019. Respondent refused to admit that the document
had been falsif ied despite clear evidence that it had been. Respondent ultimately
fulfilled his 2018 MCLE requirements, and his eligibility was reinstated on August
23, 2019. However, respondent admitted that, on June 17, 2019 while he was
ineligible to practice law, he filed a motion in Breaux v. Duhon . Respondent also
admitted that he prepared and notarized an affidavit in the same case on the same
day. Additionally, respondent admitted that the judge presiding over McKnight v.
McKnight signed a final judgment beari ng his signature on August 21, 2019;
however, respondent was not certain when he prepared the judgment.
Based on these factual findings, the committee determined respondent
violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges. The
committee further determined respondent knowingly violated duties owed to his
clients, the public, the le gal system, and the legal profession. His conduct caused
potentially catastrophic harm to his clients and actual harm to the legal profession.
Relying on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , the committee
determined the baseline sanction is suspension.
In aggravation, the committee found the following: submission of false
evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary
process, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, and substantial
experience in the practice of law (admitted 1991). In further aggravation, the
committee noted that (1) respondent was also ineligible to practice law for failing to
comply with MCLE requirements in both 2016 and 2017; (2) he specifically failed

7

to cooperate with the ODC’s investigation by failing to produce the requested credit
card statement until the formal hearing; (3) he displayed no remorse; and (4) he
exhibited a cavalier attitude toward the disciplinary process. In mitigation, the
committee noted that respondent is experiencing health problems (he suffered four
strokes and has experienced extremely high blood pressure).
After further considering this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the committee recommended respondent be suspe nded from the
practice of law for one year and one day.
Respondent filed an objection to the committee’s report and recommendation.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation
After review, the disciplinary board determined the hearing committee’s
factual findings are not manifestly erroneous and are supported by the record. Thus,
the board adopted same, with some clarifications and additions. First, the board
clarified that TRTCLE offered the course at issue in Louisiana in 2017 but did not
offer the course in Louisiana in 2019. The board also clarified that the admissions
respondent made regarding the documents he prepared, signed, and/or filed while
ineligible to practice law were made during his testimony at the formal hearing in
this matter. The board then made additional findings as follows:
1. On August 21, 2019, respondent provided a sworn statement to the ODC;
2. During the sworn statement, respondent denied that he had practiced law
while ineligible except for appearing at a deposition the week before the sworn
statement because he understood from Ms. Hunter that he was able to start
practicing again;
3. During the sworn statement, respondent testified that he took the course at
issue on June 26, 2019 and paid for the course with a credit card. The ODC
requested a copy of the credit card statement;

8

4. Respondent did not produce a copy of the credit card statement until the
formal hearing on October 28, 2020. The statement included a payment to
TRTCLE on June 27, 2019 for $134. Mr. Issa explained that respondent
purchased two TRTCLE courses at that time: one entitled “Money is the Root
of Many Ethical Violations” for $75 and another entitled “A Primer on
Technology Contracts” for $59; and
5. In addition to the 2019 period of ineligibility at issue here, respondent was
also ineligible for short periods of time in 2011, 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018.
Based on these facts, the board determined respondent violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct as charged, with one exception. Specifically, the board found
that respondent filed at least one pleading and notarized a document while ineligible
to practice law in June 2019 in violation of Rule 5.5(a). Respondent also violated
Rule 8.4(c) when he submitted altered documentation to the LSBA regarding
completion of the course at issue, gave false information regarding the completion
of the course to the ODC during his sworn statement, and falsely denied having
engaged in the practice of law while ineligible to do so during his sworn statement.
Respondent further failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation in violation
of Rule 8.1(c) by failing to produce the credit card statement for the credit card that
he claimed during his sworn statement was used to purchase the course at issue.
Respondent also failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation by providing
altered documents and false information during the investigation.
However, the board found that the ODC’s allegation and the committee’s
conclusion that respondent violated Rule 1.1(c) are inaccurate. Rule 1.1(c) provides
that a lawyer is required to comply with all of the requirements of the court’s rules
regarding annual registration, including payment of bar dues, payment of the
disciplinary assessment, timely notification of changes of address, and proper
disclosure of trust account information or any changes therein. There is no allegation

9

in the formal charges that respondent failed to comply with Rule 1.1(c). Instead, the
factual allegation proven at the hearing was that respondent failed to satisfy his
MCLE requirements. According to the board, this failure constitutes a violation of
Rule 1.1(b), which requires a lawyer to comply with the minimum requirements of
continuing legal education. Therefore, the board concluded that respondent violated
Rule 1.1(b), not Rule 1.1(c).2
Finally, the board found that the above rule violations establish the derivative
violation of Rule 8.4(a), which provides it is professional misconduct to violate or
attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The board then determined that respondent knowingly, if not intentionally,
violated duties owed to his clients, the legal system, and the legal profession. His
conduct caused harm to the attorney disciplinary system and to the integrity of the
legal profession. He caused potential harm to his clients and the legal system. Based
on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the board determined the
baseline sanction is suspension.
In aggravation, the board found the following: a dishonest or selfish moti ve,
multiple offenses, submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive
practices during the disciplinary process, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature
of the conduct, and substantial experience in the practice of law. In further
aggravation, the board noted that respondent has been ineligible to practice law for
failing to comply with his professional obligations on six other occasions over the
past ten years. In mitigation, the board found the absence of a prior disciplinary

2 In Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Keys, 88-2441 (La. 9/7/90), 567 So.2d 588, 591, citing In re:
Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S. Ct. 1222, 20 L. Ed. 2d 117 (1968), the court held that due process
requires that an attorney be given notice of the misconduct for which the disciplinary authori ty
seeks to sanction him. Here, the formal charges specifically state that respondent was declared
ineligible to practice law from May 31, 2019 to August 23, 2019 for failing to satisfy his MCLE
requirements. Therefore, the substance of the formal charges gave respondent adequate notice of
the asserted sanctionable misconduct. Accordingly, the board determined that a finding of a Rule
1.1(b) violation is appropriate.

10

record and physical disability (with respect to his initial failure to complete his
MCLE requirements).
Like the committee, after further considering this court’s prior jurisprudence
addressing similar misconduct, the board recommended respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for one year and one day.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed a timely objection in this court to the
disciplinary board’s recommendation. However, after the expiration of the time for
filing objections under Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G)(1), respondent filed a
motion for extension to file an objection with the accompanying objection. On
September 27, 2021, we issued an order denying the motion and rejecting
respondent’s objection as untimely. However, we permitted the parties to file briefs,
without oral argument. Respondent and the ODC both filed briefs in response to the
court’s order.

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
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 practiced law
while ineligible due to his failure to comply with his MCLE requirements for 2018.
The record also indicates that, while attempting to cure his ineligibility, respondent

11

provided the LSBA with an altered certificate of completion for a CLE course. Both
the hearing committee and the disciplinary board found that respondent knowingly
altered the certificate of completion and then provided false statements about the
altered certificate of completion to the ODC and at the formal hearing of this matter.
Based on these facts, respondent has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as
found by the board.
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 discip line 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).
We agree with the board that respondent acted knowingly, if not intentionally.
He violated duties owed to his clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal
profession. His conduct harmed the attorney disciplinary system and the legal
profession and had the potential to harm his clients, the public, and the legal system.
We also agree with the committee and the board that the baseline sanction is
suspension.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, we find guidance from the
following cases: In re: Parks, 08 -3006 (La. 4/24/09), 9 So. 3d 106; In re: Hebert ,
08-2785 (La. 5/29/09), 9 So. 3d 846; and In re: Carter, 13-2005 (La. 10/11/13), 128
So. 3d 990. In Parks , an attorney failed to cooperate with the ODC in its
investigation of a disciplinary complaint. Whe n the attorney finally began to
cooperate with the ODC, she made numerous misrepresentations, both while under

12

oath and in written and verbal statements. For this knowing and intentional
misconduct, we suspended the attorney from the practice of law for one year and one
day. In Hebert, an attorney neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a
client, made false statements of material fact to the client and the ODC, and failed
to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. For this partly negligent and partly
intentional misconduct, we suspended the attorney from the practice of law for one
year and one day. Finally, in Carter, an attorney negligently practiced law while
ineligible to do so. For this misconduct, we suspended the attorney from the practice
of law for six months, fully deferred, subject to two years of probation with
conditions.
In light of this case law, we find a suspension from the practice of law for one
year and one day wi ll adequately address the totality of respondent’s misconduct.
Accordingly, 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 and the briefs filed by the parties,
it is ordered that Samuel Robert Aucoin, Louisiana Bar Roll number 20682, be and
he 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.