In Re: Brad Thomas Andrus

Supreme Court of Louisiana
January 19, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: BRAD THOMAS ANDRUS
No. 2021-B-01508
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
January 19, 2022
Disbarment imposed. See per curiam.
Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
JDH
JLW
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
01/19/2022 "See News Release 003 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2
021-B-1508
I
N RE: BRAD THOMAS ANDRUS
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Brad Thomas Andrus, an
attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently ineligible to practice.1
UNDE
RLYING FACTS
By way of background, Safeco Insurance Company issued a homeowner’ s
policy to James E. Harmon for his home in Branch, Louisiana. The policy was in
effect on May 3, 2014, w hen Mr. Harmon discovered that his home had sustained
extensive water and mold damage as the result of a broken water line. Mr. Harmon
promptly contacted Safeco to report the damage and to make a claim on his policy.
On May 14, 2014, Safeco issued a reservation of rights letter to Mr. Harmon.
Thereafter, Mr. Harmon retained respondent to handle the matter. On May
18, 2014, Mr. Harmon gave respondent a check in the amount of $4,500 as an
advance deposit for attorney’s fees. On May 26, 2014, Mr. Harmon signed a written
fee agreement in which he agreed to pay respondent $180 per hour for his legal
services. On the same date, respondent sent Safeco a letter of representation. On
July 27, 2014, Mr. Harmon paid respondent an additional $5,025 in attorney’s fees.
2
1 Respondent has been ineligible to practice law since July 1, 2020 for failure to comply with his
professional obligations.
2 Respondent submitted into evidence an invoice for this amount which he testified he had located
in a box at his father’s house just before the hearing in this matter. According to the invoice,
01/19/22

2

By letter dated June 10, 2014, Safeco notified respondent that the damage to
Mr. Harmon’s home would be covered by his homeowner’s policy. After multiple
requests to respondent for payment instructions went unanswered, Safeco issued a
check on October 20, 2014 payable to Mr. Harmon in the amount of $36,974.95. On
January 21, 2015, Safeco issued a second check payable to Mr. Harmon in the
amount of $1,000. Both checks were mailed to respondent’s law office. In February
2015, Mr. Harmon endorsed the checks and respondent deposited them into his client
trust account. Thereafter, respondent distributed the funds to pay for repairs to Mr.
Harmon’s home; however, the balance of his trust account was regularly below the
amount he was holding on Mr. Harmon’s behalf.
By letter dated December 2, 2016, Mr. Harmon terminated respondent’s
representation and requested the return of his file. Respondent did not comply with
Mr. Harmon’s request. In March 2017, Mr. Harmon retained a new attorney who
sent two letters to respondent requesting the return of the file, to no avail.
In August 2017, Mr. Harmon filed a complaint against respondent with the
ODC, alleging that he did not personally receive any of the Safeco insurance
proceeds, nor did he receive an accounting of the funds from respondent. Mr.
Harmon acknowledged that some repair work had been done on his home but he
maintained that the work was not finished and that the house was not in a livable
condition.
In his response to the complaint, dated October 2, 2017, respondent indicated
that the checks issued by Safeco were deposited into his client trust account on
February 23, 2015. The deposit totaled $37,974.95. Respondent represented that

respondent worked 63.5 hours on Mr. Harmon’s insurance claim between May 26, 2014 and July
25, 2014, including 20.5 hours on one day. He billed this time at $150 per hour (notwithstanding
the hourly fee of $180 contained in his fee agreement with Mr. Harmon) for a total fee of $9,525.
Less the initial retainer of $4,500, the total amount due on the invoice was $5,025.

3

Mr. Harmon owed him $8,280 in attorney’s fees, 3 which Mr. Harmon specifically
requested respondent pay himself out of the insurance proceeds. Respondent further
indicated that Mr. Harmon did not want to receive a check for the balance due to
him of $29,694.95, but instead, Mr. Harmon requested that respondent maintain
these funds in his trust account and disburse them in cash to pay for the restoration
of the house. Respondent agreed to this request and represented that he subsequently
made cash payments totaling $25,144.09 to a carpenter, Jim Meche, for labor and
materials in connection with the work done on Mr. Harmon’s home. Respondent
also stated that he paid $7,882 in cash to Morgan Custom Cabinets to build and
install cabinets in Mr. Harmon’s kitchen.4 According to respondent, the work on the
house was “99.99% complete” and would be finished “within two weeks of the date
of this letter.”
Attached to the response were copies of thirteen receipts for cash payments
respondent allegedly made to Mr. Meche.5 Each of the cash receipts was purportedly

3 Respondent testified that despite a diligent search, he is unable to locate an invoice for this fee.
4 The alleged payments by respondent to Mr. Meche and Morgan Custom Cabinets exceed the
balance that was owed to Mr. Harmon ($29,694.95) by approximately $3,300. Respondent stated
that he paid this overage out of his own pocket.
5 These receipts reflect the following cash payments by respondent to Mr. Meche:
March 2, 2015 $4,860
March 11, 2015 $2,700
March 15, 2015 $2,340
March 23, 2015 $1,800
March 30, 2015 $4,140
April 6, 2015 $1,980
September 4, 2015 $2,074.09
December 11, 2015 $900
July 7, 2016 $950
September 9, 2016 $900
September 23, 2016 $900
November 18, 2016 $750
December 2, 2016 $850
The six cash payments allegedly made in March and April 2015, which total $17,820, correspond
to checks drawn on respondent’s client trust account and marked as payment of attorney’s fees.
Respondent claimed he marked the checks in this fashion at the request of Mr. Harmon. There are

4

signed by Mr. Mec he. Respondent also included copies of invoices allegedly
prepared by Morgan Custom Cabinets which reflected a deposit made on June 19,
2017 and payment in full made on August 8, 2017. Both Mr. Meche and Anthony
Morgan, the owner of Morgan Custom Cabinet s, subsequently indicated that the
documentation submitted by respondent was fabricated. Specifically, Mr. Meche
informed the ODC that the signatures on the cash receipts are not his signatures. 6
Mr. Morgan informed the ODC that the cabinet invoices are not his company’s
invoices, and that the payments received from respondent were not made until
September 20, 2017 and April 9, 2018.
The ODC also alleges that respondent engaged in dishonest conduct relating
to the submission of his response to Mr. Harmon’s disciplinary complaint.
Following the filing of the complaint, the ODC granted respondent two extensions
of time to respond, such that his response was due on September 29, 2017. On that
date, respondent appeared at the ODC’s offices to hand-deliver a letter requesting a
third extension of time. According to respondent, he had spent “many, many hours”
preparing a response to the complaint, which was stored on his laptop computer, but
the computer had been stolen when his truck was burglarized sometime the evening
before or early that morning. Respondent provided a copy of a handwritten
“Voluntary Statement” to the Church Point Police Department (“CPPD”) in support
of his representation that his computer had been stolen in a vehicle burglary. The
ODC granted respondent’s request for a third extension of time, and subsequently
received his response to the complaint on October 23, 2017.

no corresponding withdrawals from respondent’s trust account for the remaining cash payments
he claims to have made to Mr. Meche, totaling $7,324.09; rather, respondent stated that he made
these payments from his personal funds.
6 Mr. Meche subsequently provided an affidavit to respondent’s counsel in which he attested that
the signatures on the receipts are genuine and that he did receive the cash from respondent. By
way of explanation for his previous statement that he did not sign the receipts, Mr. Meche attested
that he was concerned he “was being questioned by an Internal Revenue Service agent and I did
not wish to admit any tax fraud or evasion.”

5

Thereafter, the ODC contacted the CPPD in an attempt to verify the
information provided by respondent concerning the alleged vehicle burglary. CPPD
Captain Richard McBride advised that his agency had no record of receiving a
complaint of a vehicle burglary on September 28 or 29, 2017. 7 Captain McBride
also noted several irregularities in the “Voluntary Statement” submitted by
respondent, including the absence of a complaint number or a description of the
vehicle in question.
Finally, the ODC alleges that respondent engaged in dishonest conduct in
connection with the service of a subpoena upon him for a sworn statement. On
March 20, 2018, the ODC’s investigator, Robert Harrison, traveled to respondent’s
law office in Lafayette to serve him with the subpoena. Respondent’s office is
located in a building that he shares with his identical twin brother, Jade Andrus, who
is also an attorney. Upon his arrival, Investigator Harrison encountered respondent
in the parking lot. After introducing himself to respondent and giving him a business
card, Investigator Harrison informed respondent he was there to serve him with a
subpoena. In response, respondent stated that he was not Brad Andrus, but was Jade
Andrus, Brad’s twin brother.
Following his conversation with “Jade,” Investigator Harrison went inside the
building and asked to see respondent. The receptionist informed I nvestigator
Harrison that respondent had just left the office moments before. Respondent was
ultimately served with the subpoena on April 4, 2018, and he appeared for a sworn
statement on April 10, 2018.

7 Initially, Captain McBride informed the ODC that the address where the burglary allegedly
occurred was outside the city limits of Church Point, such that the Acadia Parish Sheriff’s Office,
and not the CPPD, would have jurisdiction over the matter. He subsequently testified at the hearing
that the address in question is within the Church Point city limits. Regardless of where the alleged
burglary occurred in relation to the city limits of Church Point, neither the CPPD nor the Acadia
Parish Sheriff’s Office has a record of a complaint by respondent that he was the victim of a vehicle
burglary.

6

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In January 2019, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging
that his conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional
Conduct: Rules 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client), 1 .4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.5(a) (a lawyer
shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an
unreasonable amount for expenses), 1.15(a) (a lawyer shall hold property of clients
or third persons that is in a lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation
separate from the lawyer’s own property), 1.16 (d) (upon written request by the
client, a lawyer shall promptly release to the client or the client’s new lawyer the
entire file relating to the matter), 8.1(a) (a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false
statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter), 8.1(b) (a lawyer
shall not fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the
person to have arisen in connection with a disciplinary matter, or knowingly fail to
respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority), 8.1(c)
(failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules
of Professional Conduct), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice).
Respondent answered the formal charges, denying he engaged in any
misconduct. Accordingly, the matter proceeded to a formal hearing on the merits.
Following the hearing, handwriting exemplars were obtained from
respondent, Mr. Harmon, and Mr. Meche. The ODC submitted these exemplars for
analysis by a forensic document examiner, Robert Foley, who w as accepted as an
expert. On August 23, 2019, Mr. Foley provided the ODC with a report in which he

7

determined8 that (1) Mr. Harmon signed the fee agreement with respondent; (2) Mr.
Harmon signed a document giving respondent permission to deposit the Safec o
checks into his client trust account, to pay himself $8,280 in attorney’s fees, and to
disburse the remaining funds in cash to a contractor to repair Mr. Harmon’s home;
(3) Mr. Meche signed a document setting forth his bid to repair Mr. Harmon’s house;
and (4) Mr. Meche did not sign any of the thirteen cash receipts. Mr. Foley found
there were indications that (1) Mr. Harmon did not sign a document giving
respondent authority to settle his homeowner’s insurance claim against Safeco; and
(2) Mr. Harmon di d not sign a document accepting Mr. Meche’s bid to repair the
house and acknowledging that respondent would make payments to Mr. Meche in
cash. Mr. Foley concluded that due to the nature of the handwriting exemplars
submitted to him for comparison, he could express no opinion as to whether
respondent wrote any of the writing in question.
By order of the chair dated August 28, 2019, the hearing committee granted
the ODC’s motion to file Mr. Foley’s report into the record of this matter under seal.

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the
hearing committee found that respondent overcharged Mr. Harmon for the work he
performed in asserting the homeowner’s insurance claim and mishandled his client
trust account. In addition, the committee found that respondent attempted to avoid
service of a subpoena, misrepresented himself to the ODC’s investigator, and failed
to produce essential documents to the ODC. The committee did not find
respondent’s hearing testimony to be credible, particularly with regard to his

8 “Determined” represents the highest degree of confidence expressed by document examiners in
handwriting comparisons, and means the examiner is certain or has no doubt, based on evidence
contained in the handwriting.

8

explanation for his computer being stolen. Based on these findings, the committee
determined that respondent violated Rules 1.5(a), 1.15(a), 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.1(c), and
8.4(d) of the Rules of Pr ofessional Conduct. The committee also made a
determination that respondent failed to provide Mr. Harmon with his file and with a
full accounting of the insurance proceeds; however, the committee did not find a
corresponding rule violation for this misconduct. The committee likewise did not
mention any of the other rule violations alleged in the formal charges.
With regard to the allegations that respondent forged the signature of Mr.
Harmon and/or Mr. Meche on certain documents at issue in this matter, the
committee determined there was not clear and convincing evidence that the
signatures were forged. Mr. Foley could not determine the authenticity of some of
the signatures, but the testimony of Mr. Harmon and Mr. Meche regarding their
signatures was contradictory and confusing. The evidence suggested that the
invoices which were allegedly issued by Morgan Custom Cabinets were not
authentic; however, there was also testimony that the cabinets had been installed in
Mr. Morgan’s home and only a few issues remained to be addressed to complete the
repairs to the home. The committee did not find clear and convincing evidence that
respondent forged the signatures of others or participated in the forging of
documents by others.
The committee determined that respondent violated duties owed to his client,
the public, and the legal system. He acted knowingly and intenti onally. His
misconduct caused harm in the form of a delay in the repair of Mr. Harmon’s home
and cast serious and legitimate doubt with Mr. Harmon as to how his settlement
funds were spent. Respondent’s lack of candor and failure to cooperate with the
ODC in this matter harmed the profession. After considering the ABA’s Standards
for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , the committee determined the applicable baseline

9

sanction is suspension. The committee made no finding of aggravating or mitigating
factors.
Under these circumstances, the committee recommended respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. The committee also
recommended that respondent be assessed with the costs and expenses associated
with this proceeding.
The ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s report.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation
After review, the disciplinary board determined that most of the hearing
committee’s factual findings are not manifestly erroneous. However, the board
concluded the committee manifestly erred in its findings regarding the forgery
allegations, and determined there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent
fabricated the cabinet invoices and the cash receipts. In support of its determination,
the board relied upon the following facts:
° The cabinet invoices submitted by respondent with his response to the
disciplinary complaint are, on their face, different in form and substance from
the billing documents which Mr. Morgan and his former employee, Mr.
Carlisle, testified were standard for Morgan Custom Cabinets. Both Mr.
Morgan and Mr. Carlisle testified that the documents submitted by respondent
would not have been generated by Morgan Custom Cabinets.
° The records of Morgan Custom Cabinets and the testimony of Mr. Morgan
and Mr. Carlisle evidence that respondent entered into an agreement for the
cabinets and made a deposit of approximately one -half of the total cost on
September 20, 2017, after Mr. Harmon filed his complaint with the ODC.
Their testimony also indicates that the cabinets were constructed shortly
thereafter, but respondent did not pay the balance due until months later. The

10

board found there is no basis to question the credibility of Mr. Morgan or Mr.
Carlisle regarding their testimony.
° The cabinet invoices submitted by respondent reflect that he made final
payment on the cabinets on August 8, 2017, four days before Mr. Harmon’s
complaint was received by the ODC. According to respondent, this payment
was not made by him in person; instead, he claimed he sent a friend with
$4,382 in cash to pay the remaining balance on the cabinets, and thereafter,
his friend gave him the invoice he provided to the OD C. The friend was
reportedly deceased at the time of the hearing. The board noted that if
respondent’s story is believed, his friend stole the money and manufactured
the invoice. However, in order to do so, the friend would have had to know
the estimate number on the original cabinet invoice as well as the amount of
the initial deposit made by respondent. Further, under respondent’s version,
the friend would have made the final payment to Morgan Custom Cabinets
over one month before the company’s billing records show respondent
actually entered into the contract and made the initial deposit. The board
concluded that respondent’s story is not credible, and that he fabricated the
cabinet invoices.
° The cash receipts respondent submitted with his response t o the disciplinary
complaint reflect that he made a series of cash payments to Mr. Meche totaling
$25,144.09 for his work on Mr. Harmon’s house. Although Mr. Meche
testified during the hearing that he signed the cash receipts, the board found
this testimony to be questionable. Mr. Meche previously told Investigator
Harrison and Mr. Harmon’s friend, Peggy Thibodeaux, that he signed only
the original bid document and did not sign the cash receipts. He made the

11

same attestations in a written statement dated January 29, 2018.9 The ODC
subsequently presented the report of handwriting expert Mr. Foley, who
determined that Mr. Meche signed the bid document but did not sign the cash
receipts. Mr. Foley’s conclusions comport with Mr. Meche’s original
statement that he did not sign the receipts.
° Considering Mr. Meche’s inconsistent statements, the certain findings of Mr.
Foley, and respondent’s complete lack of credibility, the board found that
respondent fabricated the cash receipts.
Based on these findings, the board determined that respondent violated the
Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges, with the exception
of Rule 1.4. The board reasoned that although respondent’s communications with
Mr. Harmon were “not entirely consistent,” the ODC did not present clear and
convincing evidence that the communications were so deficient as to constitute a
violation of Rule 1.4.
The board determined that respondent violated duties owed to his client and
the legal profession. He acted knowingly an d intentionally, causing harm. Mr.
Harmon was overcharged for attorney’s fees, the repairs to his home were delayed,
and he did not know how his insurance proceeds were spent. Respondent initially
took a portion of the proceeds as attorney’s fees and did not maintain the balance
owed to Mr. Harmon in his trust account, thereby converting funds. In the end, it
appears that although repairs were delayed, Mr. Harmon’s house was repaired and
that most and possibly all of the insurance proceeds were eventually paid by
respondent toward the repairs. However, it is unknown whether the same outcome
would have occurred had Mr. Harmon not filed a complaint with the ODC.
Respondent’s mishandling of his trust account also created the potential for harm to

9 The board acknowledged that after making these verbal and written statements, Mr. Meche later
provided an affidavit to respondent’s counsel in which he stated that he did sign the receipts.

12

clients other than Mr. Harmon. Respondent’s lack of candor and failure to cooperate
with the ODC caused additional expenditures of resources and potential delay in the
resolution of the investigation. After considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing
Lawyer Sanctions, the board determined the baseline sanction is disbarment.
The board found the following aggravating factors are supported by the
record: a dishonest or selfish motive, 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, vulnerability of
the victim, and substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 2000). The
sole mitigating factor found by the board is the absence of a prior disciplinary record.
After considering this court’s prior j urisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the board recommended respondent be disbarred. The board further
recommended respondent be ordered to participate in the Louisiana State Bar
Association’s (“LSBA”) Fee Dispute Resolution Program and to pay any amounts
awarded to Mr. Harmon. Finally, the board recommended that respondent be
assessed with the costs and expenses associated with this proceeding.
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. 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:

13

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 before us supports a finding that respondent engaged in serious
attorney misconduct. He neglected his client’s legal matter, charged and collected
an unreasonable fee, converted client funds held in his trust account, failed to return
his client’s file upon request, and engaged in deceptive and dishonest behavior in the
course of this disciplinary proceeding. This misconduct amounts to a violation of
the Rules of Professional Conduct as found 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 aggr avating and
mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So. 2d 520
(La. 1984).
Respondent violated duties owed to his client, the public, the legal system,
and the legal profession, causing actual harm. His conduct was both kn owing and
intentional. Considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the
baseline sanction in this matter is disbarment. The record supports the aggravating
and mitigating factors found by the board.
Turning to the issue of an appropria te sanction, we agree that respondent
should be disbarred. While we do not minimize the seriousness of his misconduct
as it relates to his client, Mr. Harmon, we suggest that respondent’s numerous
instances of deceptive behavior are the most disturbing aspect of this matter. From
the incredible tale of a vehicle burglary offered as justification for failing to timely

14

respond to the disciplinary complaint, to his attempt to evade service of a subpoena
by claiming to be his identical twin brother, and finally to submitting fabricated
receipts and invoices to the ODC, respondent has violated the most fundamental duty
of an officer of the court. The utter absence of candor respondent has demonstrated
in these proceedings calls his good moral character into se rious question and
warrants disbarment.
Accordingly, we will adopt the disciplinary board’s recommendation and
impose disbarment. We will also order respondent to participate in fee dispute
arbitration through the LSBA and require him to pay any amounts awarded to Mr.
Harmon by the arbitrator.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee
and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Brad Thomas
Andrus, Louisiana Bar Roll number
26785, be and he hereby is disbarred. 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 ordered that respondent shall participate in the
Louisiana State Bar Association’s Fee Dispute Resolution Program with respect to
the fees paid by James Harmon, and pay any amounts awarded to Mr . Harmon by
the arbitrator. 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.