In Re: John W. 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: JOHN W. REDMANN
No. 2021-B-01060
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: John W. Redmann - Applicant Other; Disciplinary Counsel - 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.
PDG
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
10/05/2021 "See News Release 040 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SU
PREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2021-
B-1060
IN
RE: JOHN W. REDMANN
ATT
ORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
PER CU
RIAM
This disciplinary proceeding arises from a joint petition for consent discipline
f
iled by respondent, John W. Redmann, and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
(“ODC”).
UNDERL
YING FACTS
In September 2020, Richard Lemmler, the Louisiana State Bar Association’s
(“LSBA”) Ethics Counsel, provided the ODC with a copy of a billboard
advertisement for the services of respondent’s law firm. The billboard was displayed
in New Orleans and read as follows:
REDMANN LAW.COM
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN W. REDMANN, LLC
RELY ON REDMANN
Westbank and Now in Metairie
504.500.5000
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 display of the advertisement.
Following the filing of Mr. Lemmler’s complaint, respondent submitted the
advertisement to the LSBA as a “late filing” to comply with the Rules of Professional
Conduct.
10/05/21

2

PETITION FOR CONSENT DISCIPLINE
On July 21, 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 Rule 7.7(c) (evaluation of advertisements by the LSBA Rules
of Professional Conduct Committee required prior to or concurrently 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 followin g factors: a prior
disciplinary record
1 and substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted
1990). 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
Tenth Circuit expressly approved the pre-filing system used in New Mexico.2 Citing

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

3

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. 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 7.7(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. 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 billboard 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 misleadi ng or harmful to the consumer of legal

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

services. The filing requirement 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 failing 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 John W. Redmann, Louisiana Bar Roll number 19984,
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.