In Re: Kevin Matthew Dantzler

Supreme Court of Louisiana
November 03, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: KEVIN MATTHEW DANTZLER
No. 2021-B-01235
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 03, 2021
Disbarment imposed. See per curiam.
SJC
JLW
JDH
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
11/03/2021 "See News Release 043 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SU
PREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 202
1-B-1235
IN
RE: KEVIN MATTHEW DANTZLER
ATT
ORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
PER CU
RIAM
Thi
s disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Kevin Matthew Dantzler, an
attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently on interim suspension
for threat of harm to the public. In re: Dantzler, 18-0621 (La. 4/27/18), 242 So. 3d
559.
PROCE
DURAL HISTORY
In September 2018, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent under
disciplinary board docket number 18-DB-063. In June 2019, the ODC filed formal
charges against respondent under disciplinary board docket number 19-DB-039.
Respondent failed to answer either set of formal charges. Accordingly, the factual
allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and
convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3).
The two sets of formal charges were consider ed by separate hearing
committees. No formal hearings were held, but the parties were given an opportunity
to file with the committees written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue
of sanctions. Respondent filed nothing for either committee’s consideration.
Before being considered by the disciplinary board, the matters were
consolidated. The board then filed a recommendation in this court encompassing
both sets of formal charges.
11/03/21

2

18-DB-063
FORMAL CHARGES
Count I
On March 20, 2017, respondent made a $7,500 deposit into his trust account.
On March 23, 2017, the depo sit was cha rged back because of an improper
endorsement. Soon thereafter, respondent’s bank notified the ODC that
respondent’s trust account was overdrawn on April 14, 2017. The overdraft was
corrected on April 19, 2017. A subsequent review of respondent’s bank statements
revealed these additional unreported overdrafts: (1) a check in the amount of $825
on April 13, 2017 ; (2) a check in the amount of $4,629 on March 17, 2017; (3) a
check in the amount of $ 2,000 on April 12, 2017; and (4) a debit in the amount of
$371 on April 14, 2017.
The OD C received notice from respondent’s bank that respondent’s trust
account became overdrawn again on June 16 and 19, 2017. On June 22, 2017, the
account was no longer ove rdrawn. T he ODC requested, via certified mail to
respondent’s primary bar registration address, additional financ ial records from
respondent for the period of December 2016 through J une 2017 . The
correspondence was returned to the ODC unclaimed. In early September 2017, the
ODC personally served r espondent with th e request for supplemental financial
information. Nevertheless, respondent failed to comply. On October 20, 2017, the
ODC sent a third request to respondent for the same information. O n October 27,
2017, the O DC received co rrespondence from respondent, indicating he was
working on collect ing the information. However, respondent never provided this
information to the ODC.
The ODC again received noti ce from respondent’s bank that respondent’s
trust account was overdrawn on November 10, 13, 14, and 15, 2017. On November
16, 2017, the account was no longer ove rdrawn. The ODC received an additional

3

notice that respondent’s trust account was overdrawn on November 27 and 28, 2017.
On November 29, 2017, the account was no longer overdrawn. The ODC received
a final notice that respondent’s trust account was overdrawn on December 22 and
28, 2017. On January 2, 2018, the account was no longer overdrawn.
On December 4, 2017, the ODC sent notice of these additional overdrafts and
a request for additional financial records to respondent at his primary bar registration
address via certified mail. The correspondence was returned to the ODC unclaimed.
The ODC made t wo attempts to personally serve respondent with a copy of the
notice.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.15 (safekeeping property of clients or
third persons), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation ), and
8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct).

Count II
From September 11, 2017 until November 20, 2017, respondent was ineligible
to practice law for failing to pay bar dues and the disciplinary assessment. The ODC
received three separate disciplinary complaints regarding respondent’s practice of
law during this period of ineligibility.
First, Office of Workers’ Compensation Judge James Braddock reported that
respondent filed a workers’ compensation claim on a client’s behalf on September
13, 2017. Respondent then failed to appear for a status conference in the case on
October 31, 2017. On November 13, 2017, the ODC sent notice of Judge
Braddock’s complaint to respondent via certified mail to his primary bar registration
address. The correspondence was returned to the ODC unclaimed. The ODC made
two attempts to personally serve respondent with notice of the complaint.
Respondent never responded to the complaint.

4

Second, attorney Holli Yandle, opposing counsel in a personal injury matter
being handled by respondent, reported that she discovered respondent’s ineligibility
on November 16, 2017 and that respondent had been practicing law during his period
of ineligibility. On December 6 , 2017, the ODC sent notice of Ms. Yandle ’s
complaint to respondent via certified mail to his primary bar registration address.
The correspondence was returned to the ODC unclaimed. The ODC made two
attempts to personally serve respondent with notice of the complaint. Respondent
never responded to the complaint.
Finally, Alexandria City Court Judge Richard Starling, Jr. reported that
respondent attempted to enroll in a criminal case during his period of ineligibility.
On October 3, 2017, respondent filed a petition for damages on a client’s behalf. On
February 20, 2018, the ODC sent notice of Judge Starling’s complaint to respondent
via certified mail to his primary bar registration address. The correspondence was
returned to the ODC unclaimed.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1(c) ( failure to pay bar dues, failure
to pay the disciplinary assessment, or failure to submit trust acco unt disclosure
statement), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).

Count III
Casie Wilkins’ husband has an admitted substance abuse problem. Suspecting
that her husband was currently using drugs, Mrs. Wilkins began “shadowing” him
and discovered he was meeting with respondent frequently. She witnessed what she
believed to be a drug transaction in which her husband purchased pain pills from
respondent. When Mrs. Wilkins confronted her husband, he “confessed” to buying
pain pills from respondent on numerous occasions. Mrs . Wilkins telephoned

5

respondent and asked him to stop selling drugs to her husband, but the conduct did
not stop. As a result, Mrs. Wilkins committed her husband to a treatment facility.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal
act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a
lawyer), and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation).

Count IV
On March 21, 2017, Brandi Michels hired respondent to handle a custody
matter. She paid respondent $2,500 in legal fees and $230 in filing fees. She also
gave respondent all of her original court documents. Respondent failed to complete
the matter and essentially stopped communicating with Ms. Michels. She later
discovered that respondent had been ineligible to practice law s ince September 11,
2017. She also discovered that respondent never enrolled as her attorney or filed
anything on her behalf. Ms. Michels requested that respondent return her documents
on several occasions. However, respondent failed to do so. Ms. Michels then hired
new counsel and sought the return of her file and the money paid to respondent.
On April 17, 2018, the ODC sent notice of Ms. Michels’ disciplinary
complaint to respondent at his primary bar registration address via certified mail.
Respondent did not respond to the complaint.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: R ules 1. 3 (failure to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with
a client), 1.5 (failure to refund an unearned fee), 1.16 (obligations upon termination
of the representation), 5.5(a) (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law), 8.1(c),
and 8.4(a).

6

Count V
In January 2013, Ernest Davis hired respondent to handle a workers’
compensation matter. Mr. Davis and respondent entered into a 20% contingency fee
agreement, but Mr. Davis never received a copy of the contract.
According to Mr. Davis, r espondent failed to appear at two depositions and
lied to Mr. Davis on several occasions. Respondent also forged Mr. Davis’
endorsement on two mileage expense reimbursement checks issued by Luba
Insurance Company. In December 2017, respondent cashed one check and took
$140.83 for what he claimed was court filing fees. Resp ondent gave Mr. Davis a
personal check for the balance of $338, but when Mr. Davis deposited the check, it
was returned for insufficient funds. In January 2018, respondent cashed the second
mileage reimbursement check, in the amount of $228.96, without the knowledge or
consent of Mr. Davis.
Throughout Feb ruary and March 2018, r espondent failed to communicate
with Mr. Davis regarding a March 11
th court date and a March 12th mediation date.
Mr. Davis finally left respondent a message terminating his services. On March 10,
2018, Mr. Davis went to the workers’ compensation court to determine what was
required to move his case forward. At that time, the judge presiding over his case
informed him r espondent had been ineligible to practice law since September 11,
2017. The judge also informed Mr. Davis that there was no $140.83 filing fee due
in the workers’ compensation court. Mr. Davis then hired new counsel and sought
the return of his file and the money stolen by forgery of the checks.
On April 18, 2018, the ODC sent notice of Mr. Davis’ disciplinary complaint
to respondent at his primary bar registration address via certified mail. Respondent
did not respond to the complaint.

7

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: R ules 1.3, l.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16, 5.5(a), 8.1(c),
8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c).

Count VI
The Rapides Parish Dis trict Attorney ’s Office notified the ODC that
respondent had requested copies of arrest records f or his client, Christopher
Gauthier, on May 4, 2018, a date subsequent to his interim suspension. On May 9,
2018, the ODC sent notice of the complaint to respondent at his new primary bar
registration add ress via certified mail. A ccording to the Louisiana State Ba r
Association, respondent had just updated his primary address on May 7, 2018.
Nevertheless, respondent failed to respond to the complaint.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 5.5(a), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a).

Count VII
In September 2017, Jessica Pa lmer hired respondent to handle her divorce .
Ms. Palmer initially paid respondent $1,800, which represented $1,500 for attorney
fees and $ 300 for filing fees. Respondent indicated he would f ile the appropriate
pleadings for the divorce but requested an additional $211 in cash, claiming he did
not have enough funds to cover the filing fee. Thereafter, Ms. Palmer was no longer
able to contact respondent.
In March 2018, having had no communication from respondent, Ms. Palmer
contacted respondent’s wife, who is also an attorney, and asked if she would file the
divorce petition instead. R espondent’s wife informed Ms. Palmer that respondent
was hospitalized but that she would consider filing the divorce petition. Ms. Palmer
forwarded her paperwork to respondent’s wife but did not hear anything further.

8

On March 15, 2018, r espondent contacted Ms. Palmer via text message .
Although respondent’s wife had indicated he was hospitalized, respondent claimed
he had been working out of town. On March 23, 2018, Ms. Palmer met respondent
to give him the additional $211 he had requested for filing fees. Respondent assured
Ms. Palmer the divorce petition would be fil ed the following Monday, March 26,
2018. Nevertheless, respondent failed to file the divorce petition . Because of
respondent’s failure to file the divorce petition, Ms. Palmer’s husband is now entitled
to an additional one-half of six months of her retirement contributions.
On May 18, 2018, the ODC sent notice of Ms. Palmer’s disciplinary complaint
to respondent at his primary bar registration address via certified mail. Respondent
did not respond to the complaint.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: R ules 1.3, l.4, 1.5, 5.5(a), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and
8.4(c).

HEARING COMMITTEE REPORT
Based on the deemed admitted facts and the ODC’s deemed admitted
submission, the hearing committee found that respondent engaged in general
neglect, incompetence, and dishonesty and failed to return unearned fees in multiple
counts. Additionally, the committee found that respondent (1) repeatedly overdrew
his trust account without explanation in Count I; (2) failed to comply with the court’s
rules regarding registration and payment of assessments and engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law in Count II; (3) engaged in criminal conduct in Count
III; (4) completely neglected Ms. Michels’ legal matter and failed to refund the
unearned fees in Count IV; (5) completely neglected Mr. Davis’ legal matter and

9

failed to refund the unearned fees in Count V; 1 (6) engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law in Count VI; and (7) completely neglected Ms. Palmer’s legal matter
and failed to refund the unearned fees in Count VII.
Based on these facts, the committee determined respondent violated the Rules
of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges. Additionally, the
committee determined respondent violated Rule 5.5(a) in Count II even though the
ODC did not charge him with this rule violation; the committee determined the
factual allegations of Count II put respondent on notice of this rule violation in that
the allegations described him practicing law while ineligible to do so.
The committee then determined respondent knowingly, if not intentionally,
violated duties owed to his clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal
profession. His conduct caused significant harm to his clients and the legal
profession. Based on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , the
committee determined the baseline sanction ranges from suspension to disbarment.
In aggravation, the committee found the following: a dishonest or selfish
motive, multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the
conduct, substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 2006), and illegal
conduct. The committee did not find any mitigating factors present.
After further considering this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the committee recommended respondent be disbarred. The committee
further recommended respondent be ordered to provide an accounting and refund
any unearned fees to Ms. Michels, Mr. Davis, and Ms. Palmer.

1 In fact, the record does not indicate respondent fa iled to refund unearned fees to Mr. Davis.
Instead, the record reflects that respondent converted funds owed to Mr. Davis by cashing two of
Mr. Davis’ mileage expense reimbursement checks and withholding some or all of the funds from
Mr. Davis. Respondent also provided Mr. Davis with a $338 check that was returned by his bank
due to insufficient funds in respondent’s bank account. In total, respondent received $707.79 on
Mr. Davis’ behalf, and the record is unclear regarding how much of this amount Mr. Davis actually
received.

10

Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s
report.

19-DB-039
FORMAL CHARGES
Count I
In May 2018, following respondent’s interim suspension from the practice of
law, Judy Miles hired respondent to represent her son in a criminal matter. Ms.
Miles paid respondent $5,700 in cash, but she subsequently discovered he was
interimly suspended prior to being retained. Although respondent promised to return
the entire $5,700 to Ms. Miles, he only returned $2,940.
On July 25, 2018, the ODC sent notice of Ms. Miles’ disciplinary complaint
to respondent at his primary bar registration address via certified mail. The notice
was returned to the ODC unclaimed.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.5(f)(5) (failure to return an unearned
fee), 1.15, 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).

Count II
In January 2017, Sandra Ludwig hired respondent to represent her in a
personal injury matter. In July 2017, Ms. Ludwig’s claim settled for $15,000.
Respondent paid Ms. Ludwig her portion of the settlement. However, he failed to
pay her $1,635 chiropractor bill, despite withholding this amount from the total
settlement.
2

2 Ms. Ludwig’s chiropractor bill totaled $2,195. However, respondent negotiated with the
chiropractor to reduce the bill to $1,635 if payment was received within two weeks of settlement
of the claim. When respondent still had not paid the chiropractor bill more than one year later, the
chiropractor sent Ms. Ludwig a bill for the full $2,195.

11

On November 13, 2018, the ODC sent notice of Ms. Ludwig’s disciplinary
complaint to respondent at his primary bar registration address via certified mail.
The notice was returned to the ODC unclaimed.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.5(f)(5), 1.15, 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c).

HEARING COMMITTEE REPORT
After considering the deemed admitted facts and the ODC’s deemed admitted
submission, the hearing committee determined that respondent violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges. The committee then
determined respondent knowingly violated duties owed to his clients and the legal
system. He failed to pay funds owed to others and ma de no effort to correct his
mistakes, causing actual harm. After considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing
Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined the baseline sanction is disbarment.
The committee then found the following aggravating factors present: a
dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith
obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the
rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful
nature of the conduct, substantial experience in the practice of law, and indifference
to making restitution. The committee found the absence of a prior disciplinary
record to be the sole mitigating factor present.
After further considering this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the committee recommended respondent be disbarred.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s
report.

12

18-DB-063 & 19-DB-039
DISCIPLINARY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
After review of the record and deemed admitted facts in both sets of formal
charges, the disciplinary board determined the hearing committee’s additional
factual findings in 18 -DB-063 were not manifestly erroneous and adopted same .
Based on the se deemed admitted facts and additional factual findings, the board
determined that the committees’ conclusions regarding rule violations are supported
by the record.
The board then determined respondent knowingly and intentionally violated
duties owed to his clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. His
conduct has caused significant actual and potential harm to his clients, potential
harm to the legal system, and actual harm to the public, the legal profession, and the
attorney disciplinary system. Relying on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer
Sanctions, the board determined the baseline sanction is disbarment.
In aggravation, the board found the following factors present: a dishonest or
selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of
the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders
of the disciplinary agency, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the
conduct, vulnerability of the victim s, substantial experience in the practice of law,
indifference to making restitution, and illegal conduct. The board found the absence
of a prior disciplinary record to be the sole mitigating factor present.
After also considering this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the board recommended respondent be disbarred. The board further
recommended respondent be ordered to return funds to his clients as follows: $2,730
to Ms. Michels, $369.79 to Mr. Davis, $2,011 to Ms. Palmer, $2,760 to Ms. Miles,
and $2,195 to Ms. Ludwig. Additionally, the board recommended respondent be
ordered to provide Ms. Michels and Mr. Davis with their client files.

13

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
been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re: Banks, 09-1212 (La. 10/2/09),
18 So. 3d 57.
In cases in which the lawyer does not answer the formal charges, the factual
allegations of those charges are deemed admitted. Supr eme Court Rule XIX, §
11(E)(3). Thus, the ODC bears no additional burden to prove the factual allegations
contained in the formal charges after those cha rges have been deemed admitted.
However, the language of § 11(E)(3) does not encompass legal conclusions that flow
from the factual allegations. If the legal conclusion the ODC seeks to prove (i.e., a
violation of a specific rule) is not readily apparent from the deemed admitted facts,
additional evidence may need to be submitted in order to prove the legal conclusions
that flow from the admitted factual allegations. In re: Donnan , 01 -3058 (La.
1/10/03), 838 So. 2d 715.
The records of these two deemed admitted matters support a finding that
respondent neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to
return client files upon request, failed to refund unearned fees, allowed his client
trust account to become overdrawn on numerous occasions, converted client funds,
practiced law while ineligible to do so, practiced law after being placed on interim
suspension, illegally sold pain pills to another person, and failed to cooperate with
the ODC in numerous investigations. Based on these facts, respondent has violated

14

the Rules of Professional Conduct as found by the hearing committees and adopted
by the disciplinary 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 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 and intentionally violated duties owed to his clients,
the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. His conduct caused significant
actual and potential harm to numerous entities. Disbarment is the baseline sanction
for his misconduct, and the record supports the board’s findings regarding the
presence of aggravating and mitigating factors.
Our prior jurisprudence also supports disbarment as the baseline sanction. In
In re: Hall, 15 -1208 (La. 9/18/15), 181 So. 3d 643, a respondent practiced
law while ineligible to do so, neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with
clients, failed to account for or refund unearned fees, engaged in illegal conduct,
engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice , and failed to
cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. For this misconduct, we disbarred the
respondent and ordered him to make restitution. Likewise, in In re: Burkart , 18-
1077 (La. 11/5/18), 255 So. 3d 999, a respondent neglected legal matters, failed to
communicate with clients, failed to return unearned fees, failed to return client file
materials, mishandled his client trust account, and failed to cooperate with the ODC

15

in its investigations. For this misconduct, we disbarred the respondent and ordered
him to return client files and refund unearned fees.
In light of this case law and the numerous aggravating factors present, we find
disbarment is the appropriate sanction here. Accordingly, we will adopt the board’s
recommendation and disbar respondent. We will further order respondent to make
restitution as follows: $2,730 to Brandi Michels, $2,011 to Jessica Palmer, $2,760
to Judy Miles, and $2,195 to Sandra Ludwig. We will also order respondent to
provide Ernest Davis with an accounting of the $707.79 he received on Mr. Davis’
behalf and pay any portion still owed to Mr. Davis. Finally, we will order respondent
to provide Ms. Michels and Mr. Davis with their client files.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committees
and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Kevin Matthew
Dantzler, Louisiana Bar Roll number 30237, be and he hereby is disbarred,
retroactive to April 27, 2018, 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
restitution as set forth in this opinion, provide Ernest Davis with an accounting and
payment of any funds due to him, and provide Brandi Michels and Ernest Davis with
their client files. 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.