In Re: Eugene P. Redmann

Supreme Court of Louisiana
October 05, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: EUGENE P. REDMANN
No. 2021-B-00955
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Eugene P. Redmann - Applicant
Other; Joint Petition for Consent Discipline;
_ _ _ _ _ _
October 05, 2021
Joint petition for consent discipline accepted. See per curiam.
McCallum, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
JTG
JLW
JDH
SJC
WJC
PDG
10/05/2021 "See News Release 040 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUP
REME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2021-B
-0955
IN RE:
EUGENE P. REDMANN
ATTO
RNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
PER CURI
AM
This disciplinary proceeding arises from a joint petition for consent discipline
fil
ed by respondent, Eugene P. Redmann, and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
(“ODC”).
UNDERLYI
NG FACTS
In August 2020, Richard Lemmler, the Louisiana State Bar Association’s
(“LSBA”) Ethics Counsel, provided the ODC with a copy of a print advertisement
for the services of respondent’s law firm. The advertisement was published in
G
AMBIT, a weekly New Orleans newspaper, and read as follows:
Immigration. Criminal Law.
Traffic Tickets
Don’t go to court without an Attorney
Call Eugene Redmann 504.834.6430
Se Habla Espanol
www.redmannlawnola.com
The content of the advertisement was not false, misleading, or deceptive.
Nevertheless, respondent acknowledges that he did not submit the advertisement for
review by the LSBA prior to or concurrently with the publication of the
advertisement, and it has not been filed with the LSBA as a “late filing.”
Furthermore, the advertisement did not disclose the city or town of respondent’s
principal office location. Respondent subsequently revised the advertisement to
comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct.
10/05/21

2

PETITION FOR CONSENT DISCIPLINE
On July 6, 2021, prior to the filing of formal charges against respondent, the
parties filed a joint petition for consent discipline in this court, stipulating that
respondent violated Rules 7.2(a)(2) (all advertisements shall disclose, by city or
town, one or more bona fide office location(s) of the lawyer(s) who will actually
perform the services advertised) and 7.7(c) (evaluation of advertisements by the
LSBA Rules of Professional Conduct Committee required prior to or co ncurrently
with the lawyer’s first dissemination of the advertisement) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct. For this misconduct, the parties propose that respondent be
publicly reprimanded.
The parties agree that respondent acted negligently. He violated a duty owed
to the legal profession, causing no actual harm but creating the potential for harm.
Citing the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the parties agree that
the baseline sanction is reprimand.
In aggravation, the parties stipulate to the following factors: a prior
disciplinary record
1 and substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted
1992). In mitigatio n, the parties stipulate to the absence of a dishonest or selfish
motive, a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, efforts to rectify the
misconduct, and remorse.
The parties represent that this is a case of first impression in Louisiana.
However, the federal courts have addressed filing and review requirements similar
to the program utilized in Louisiana. The United States Supreme Court first
suggested that attorneys pre-file their advertisements with a state agency for review
in Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 486 U.S. 466 (1988). In McDevitt v. Disciplinary
Board, 108 F.3d 341 (10
th Cir. 1997), the United States Court of Appeals for the

1 In 2013, respondent was admonished by the disciplinary board for failing to file an advertisement
with the LSBA.

3

Tenth Circuit expressly approved the pre-filing system used in New Mexico.2 Citing
Shapero, the court of appeals held, “The Supreme Court has implicitly endorsed the
ability of supervisory filing and review systems such as the one now in use in New
Mexico to alleviate harms associated with attorney advertising. Moreover, the Court
has noted that a filing system is a narrowly -tailored means for addressing such
harms.”
Considering the facts of this case, the parties urge the court to accept the joint
petition for consent discipline.

DISCUSSION
In this matte r, respondent acknowledges that he failed to submit an
advertisement for his law firm’s services to the LSBA for review either prior to or
concurrently with the publication of the advertisement. The advertisement also did
not contain the required disclosure of respondent’s principal office location. For this
misconduct, the parties propose that respondent be publicly reprimanded.
In 2009, this court adopted the attorney advertising rules set forth in Rule 7.1
et seq. of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 7.2 sets forth the required content
of such advertisements, including a disclosure, “by city or town, [of] one or more
bona fide office location(s) of the lawyer or lawyers who will actually perform the
services advertised.” It is undisputed that respondent’s advertisement in G
AMBIT did
not include this disclosure. Further, Rule 7.7(c) requires that advertisements of a
lawyer’s services published in any public media be filed with the LSBA Rules of
Professional Conduct Committee “for evaluation of compliance with these Rules.

2 The New Mexico system at issue in McDevitt appears to be identical to that used in Louisiana.
New Mexico lawyers who advertised services through any public medium were required to file a
copy of the advertisement with the Legal Advertising Committee of the Disciplinary Board for
evaluation of compliance with the legal advertising rules. The copy was required to be filed either
prior to or concurrently with the lawyer’s first dissemination of the advertisement.

4

The copy shall be filed either prior to or concurrently with the lawyer’s first
dissemination of the advertisement…” Respondent acknowledges that he did not
pre-file his G
AMBIT advertisement with the LSBA, and that he was admonished in
2013 for the same misconduct.
Louisiana’s lawyer advertising rules generally reflect this court’s efforts to
identify and address forms of advertising and types of information that, unless
adequately conveyed, may prove misleading or harmful to the consumer of legal
services. The filing requireme nt is intended to not only create a central
clearinghouse of all non-exempt lawyer advertising in Louisiana but provides for
review by an LSBA committee to reasonably assure the membership that their
advertisement is compliant. However, when lawyers fail or refuse to file an
advertisement with the LSBA, they effectively defeat the purpose of creating a
central registry and avoid the review process. In such a case, discipline is warranted.
Because respondent has previously received private discipline for f ailing to
comply with the advertising rules, we agree that the increased sanction of a public
reprimand is appropriate in this instance. Accordingly, we will accept the petition
for consent discipline.

DECREE
Upon review of the joint petition for consent discipline, it is ordered that the
petition be accepted and that Eugene P. Redmann , Louisiana Bar Roll number
21349, be 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.