In Re: Zachary Ryan Moffett

Supreme Court of Louisiana
October 19, 2021
Second Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: ZACHARY RYAN MOFFETT
No.2021-B-01058
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN
RE: Disciplinary C ounsel - Applicant Other ; Findings and Recommendations
(
Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
October
19, 2021
D
isbarment imposed. See per curiam.
Cr
ichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
JDH
JLW
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
10/19/2021 "See News Release 042 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
21-B-1058
I
N RE: ZACHARY RYAN MOFFETT
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Zachary Ryan Moffett, an
attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently on interim suspension
for threat of harm to the public. In re: Moffett, 19 -0627 (La. 5/6/19), 268 So. 3d
1024.
Respondent is the subject of 49 counts of formal charges filed by the ODC. 1
The formal charges allege a pattern of misconduct by respondent of accepting legal
fees from clients and then abandoning the representation without further
communication and after doing little, if any, work in the matters. Respondent also
failed to return his clients’ files upon request and failed to refund unearned fees and
advanced costs totaling approximately $130,000. 2 Finally, the ODC alleged that
respondent engaged in the practice of law after he was placed on interim suspension
and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation.
1 The formal charges allege the following violations: Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client),
1.5(f)(5) (failure to refund an unearned fee), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the
representation), 5.5 (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) of the Rules
of Professional Conduct.

2 Approximately $50,000 of this amount has been reimbursed to clients by the Louisiana State Bar
Association’s Client Assistance Fund.
10/19/21

2

Respondent answered the formal charges and admitted the allegations therein.
He also requested a hearing in mitigation.
The hearing committee conducted a mitigation hearing in May 2021. No
witnesses appeared at the hearing with the exception of respondent, who testified
that he suffers from bipolar disorder, anxiety, and depression. Respondent argued
that his mental health problems and his inexperience in the practice of law warrant
a lengthy suspension rather than disbarment.
Following the hearing, the hearing committee recommended respondent be
disbarred. The committee reasoned that responden t did not act with a dishonest or
selfish motive but instead “was not competent to handle the work and was
overwhelmed to the point of procrastination. ” The committee also found that if
respondent can address his mental health issues and make restitution to his clients
and the Client Assistance Fund, then he “should be given the opportunity for
reapplying for admission after five years.”
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s
recommendation. Therefore, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G), the
disciplinary board submitted the committee’s report to the court for review.

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:

3

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 underlying facts of this matter are not in dispute, having been admitted
by respondent. Essentially, respondent neglected his clients’ legal matters, failed to
communicate with his clients, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its
investigations. Respondent engaged in further misconduct by failing to inform his
clients that he had been placed on interim suspension. He engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law by accepting fees and meeting with clients after his
interim sus pension. All told, respondent has failed to refund approximately
$130,000 in unearned fees and costs to his clients. This conduct violated 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 knowingly, if not intentionally, violated duties owed to his
clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. His misconduct caused
significant actual harm, in particular to his clients, whose legal matters were not
completed and who did not receive reimbursement of the fees they paid. We agree
with the hearing committee that the applicable baseline sanction is disbarment.
Aggravating factors include a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of
misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding

4

by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency,
vulnerability of the victims, indifference to making restitution, and illegal conduct.3
The factors in mitigation are as follows: the absence of a prior disciplinary record,
personal or emotional problems, and inexperience in the practice of law (admitted
2014).
Considering the voluminous record of this matter, and the absence of any
objection by the ODC to the committee’s recommendation, we agree that disbarment
is an appropriate sanction. Prior to applying for readmission, respondent shall make
full restitution to each of his clients subject of the formal charges and/or to the
Louisiana State Bar Association’s Client Assistance Fund, as appropriate.
Respondent shall also address his mental health issues through the Judges and
Lawyers Assistance Program.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the hearing committee ,
and considering the record, it is ordered that Zachary Ryan Moffett , Louisiana Bar
Roll number 35526, be and he hereby is disbarred, retroactive to May 6, 2019, the
date of his interim suspension. His name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys
and his license to practice law in the State of Louisiana shall be revoked. It is further
ordered that respondent shall make full restitution to each of his clients subject of
the formal charges and/or to the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Client Assistance
Fund, as appropriate, and address his mental health issues through the Judges and
Lawyers Assistance Program . All costs and expenses in the matter are assesse d
against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal

3 Felony theft charges are pending against respondent arising out of two client matters in which he
accepted legal fees from his clients but failed to perform any work.

5

interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment
until paid.