In Re: Michael Isaias Rodriguez, Jr.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
September 27, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: MICHAEL ISAIAS RODRIGUEZ, JR.
No. 2022-B-01063
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
September 27, 2022
Disbarment imposed. See per curiam.
Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
JDH
JLW
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
09/27/2022 "See News Release 042 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
N
o. 2022-B-1063
I
N RE: MICHAEL ISAIAS RODRIGUEZ, JR.
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Michael Isaias Rodriguez, Jr., an
attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently ineligible to practice.
FO
RMAL CHARGES
On July 6, 2012, Donald Foy was injured in an accident. Thereafter, he
contacted respondent for representation. On July 8, 2013, respondent and his wife,
attorney Shannon Casey Rodriguez, filed a lawsuit on Mr. Foy’s behalf.
During his representa tion of Mr. Foy, respondent was ineligible to practice
law as follows:
1. September 9, 2013 to September 20, 2013 – failure to pay bar dues and the
disciplinary assessment;
2. September 9, 2014 to August 31, 2015 – failure to pay bar dues and the
disciplinary assessment and failure to comply with mandatory continuing
legal education requirements; and
3. June 3, 2016 to present – failure to pay bar dues and the disciplinary
assessment, failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal education
requirements, and failure to submit trust account disclosure statement.
Respondent and opposing counsel set September 6, 2017 as the date for a
deposition. That same day, respondent emailed opposing counsel, stating, “I think
09/27/22

2

it would be unwise for me to attend today’s deposi tion, as I am still technically
ineligible. Would you mind rescheduling the deposition to take place in the next 2-
3 weeks? I am quite certain that my situation will be resolved within that time
period.” Opposing counsel agreed, and the deposition was rescheduled for October
23, 2017. Even though respondent was still ineligible to practice law, he appeared
at the deposition in his capacity as Mr. Foy’s counsel. Furthermore, on November
27, 2017 while still ineligible to practice, respondent emailed opposing counsel
regarding settlement of the case.
A pre-trial conference was set for January 24, 2018. Neither respondent nor
Mr. Foy appeared, and the matter was rescheduled for April 12, 2018. On March
22, 2018, respondent emailed opposing counsel and advised that his father, attorney
Michael I. Rodriguez, Sr., would be enrolling as additional counsel for Mr. Foy. On
April 11, 2018, someone faxed to the court a motion to enroll as counsel of record,
seeking an order allowing respondent’s father to enroll as additional counsel for Mr.
Foy. The fax was transmitted via a fax number associated with respondent’s wife.
On April 12, 2018, respondent emailed opposing counsel advising that his
father had filed a motion to enroll and that the court’s signed orde r would be
forwarded upon receipt. Respondent also asked opposing counsel for a continuance
of the status conference scheduled for later that day. Opposing counsel agreed to
the continuance. However, the filing of the faxed motion to enroll was never
completed. Furthermore, the signature on the motion to enroll was not written or
authorized by respondent’s father, who never agreed to represent Mr. Foy and was
not aware that a motion to enroll under his name was forwarded to the court by fax
or otherwise.
Opposing counsel eventually discovered respondent’s misrepresentation
about the motion to enroll. Consequently, opposing counsel emailed respondent on
May 2, 2018, stating, “About 10 days ago I left you a VM on your cell given to me

3

by your dad as he stated he was not handling this matter and did not receive the file
from you. The status conference was continued based on your representations he
was going to handle.”
The court rescheduled the status conference for July 19, 2018. Opposing
counsel was present, but respondent was not. That same day, respondent emailed
opposing counsel, advising that he was served with notice of the status conference
“last night” but that he was in Florida with his family. Respondent also advised
opposing counsel he stil l had past due bar dues he needed to pay, but once he
resolved the issue, he would “like very much to work with you to bring this matter
to a conclusion.”
Almost a year later, opposing counsel’s efforts to move the case forward were
to no avail. On June 25, 2019, respondent emailed opposing counsel and again
represented that his father was assisting with Mr. Foy’s representation. Respondent
also advised that, “in the unlikely event that my eligibility status is not resolved…
by the end of July, I will wi thdraw from representing Mr. Foy.” In response,
opposing counsel stated, “To be clear, I contacted your Dad when you corresponded
that you were adding him as co-counsel a while back. He said he was not going to
handle the matter.” Respondent never resol ved his ineligibility, and he did not
withdraw as Mr. Foy’s attorney.
Frustrated with the lack of progress in his case and unable to make contact
with respondent, Mr. Foy sent a letter to respondent on April 23, 2021, notifying
respondent that his legal services were terminated and requesting that respondent
return his client file. Mr. Foy obtained new counsel, and his new attorney also
requested in writing the return of Mr. Foy’s file. On May 24, 2021, respondent
emailed Mr. Foy and requested until June 2, 2021 to return the file. On June 4, 2021,
after not receiving the file, Mr. Foy again emailed respondent, begging him to return
the file. In response, respondent indicated that he had a vested interest in the

4

outcome of Mr. Foy’s lawsuit and that the preparation of the file was taking longer
than anticipated. Later that month, respondent began emailing Mr. Foy’s file to his
new attorney.
On May 25, 2021, the ODC received a disciplinary complaint against
respondent from Mr. Foy. The ODC sent respondent multiple notices of the
compliant via certified mail, regular mail, and email. Nevertheless, respondent did
not provide a response. The ODC then made two attempts to serve respondent with
a subpoena to appear for a sworn statement but was unsuccessful.
The ODC alleged that respondent violated the following provisions of the
Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1(b) (failure to comply with MCLE
requirements), 1.1(c) (failure to pay bar dues, failure to pay the disciplinary
assessment, failure to tim ely provide change of address information, or failure to
submit trust account information), 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client), 1.16(a)(1) (declining or terminating
representation), 3.2 (failure to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation), 4.1(a)
(truthfulness in statements to others), 4.4(a) (respect for rights of third persons),
5.5(a)(e)(3) (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law), 8.1(b)(knowing failure
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).

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In January 2022, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent as set forth
above. Respondent failed to answer the formal charges. Accordingly, the factual
allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and

5

convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). No formal
hearing was held, but the parties were given an opportunity to file with th e hearing
committee written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue of sanctions.
Respondent filed nothing for the hearing committee’s consideration.

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the ODC’s deemed admitted submission, the hearing
committee acknowledged that the factual allegations set forth in the formal charges
have been deemed admitted. Based upon the deemed admitted facts and the other
evidence in the record, the committee found that respondent intentionally
disregarded the Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, the committee found
that respondent continued to represent Mr. Foy knowing he was ineligible to practice
law during several periods of time. He then filed a fraudulent pleading with the court
that sought to enroll his father as additional counsel for Mr. Foy. Respondent also
delayed the case through false statements to opposing counsel and misrepresented
to opposing counsel that he would withdraw as counsel for Mr. Foy if his eligibility
status was not resolved. Later, Mr. Foy terminated respondent’s services after being
unable to contact him. Respondent then delayed the return of Mr. Foy’s file. When
Mr. Foy filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent, he failed to cooperate
with the ODC’s investigation.
Based on these factual findings, the committee determined respondent
violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged. Specifically, the committee
determined that respondent failed to fulfill his annual professional obligations in
violation of Rules 1.1(b) and 1.1(c); neglected Mr. Foy’s legal matter through his
delay tactics in violation of Rule 1.3; failed to withdrew from the representation
despite his ineligibility in violation of Rule 1.16(a)(1); intentionally made false
statements to opposing counsel and filed a fraudulent pleading with the court, which

6

improperly delayed Mr. Foy’s case, in violation of Rules 3.2, 4.1(a), 8.4(c), and
8.4(d); sought a continuance without taking action to resolve his ineligibility and
filed a fraudulent pleading t o add counsel for no substantial purpose other than to
cause delay in violation of Rule 4.4(a); appeared at a deposition and engaged in
settlement discussions with opposing counsel while he was ineligible to practice law
in violation of Rules 5.5(a) and 5. 5(e); and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its
investigation in violation of Rules 8.1(b) and 8.1(c). The committee additionally
determined that, in intentionally violating the above Rules of Professional Conduct,
respondent also violated Rule 8.4(a).
The committee then determined respondent violated duties owed to his client,
the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. His misconduct caused actual
and potential harm to Mr. Foy, opposing counsel, the public, the legal system, and
the legal profession. Citing the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions ,
the committee determined the baseline sanction is disbarment.
The committee found the following aggravating factors present: a dishonest
or selfish motive, 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 (admitted 2002), and illegal conduct (the unauthorized practice
of law). The sole mitigating factor found by the committee is the absence of a prior
disciplinary record.
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 committee’s report.
Therefore, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G), the disciplinary board
submitted the committee’s report to the court for review.

7

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. S upreme 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 charges 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 record in this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent
failed to fulfill his annual professional obligations, practiced law while ineligible to
do so, delayed the resolution of his client’s legal matter by making false statements
to opposing counsel and filing a fraudulent motion with the court, and failed to
cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. Therefore, he has violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges and found by the hearing
committee.
Having found evidence of professional misconduct, we now turn to a
determination of the appropriate sanction for r espondent’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,

8

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).
We agree with the committee that respondent intentionally violated duties
owed to his client, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession, which
caused actual and potential harm. We also agree with the committee’s assessment
that the baseline sanction in this matter is disbarment.
Aggravating factors include a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of
misconduct, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally
failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, and substantial
experience in the practice of law. The sole mitigating factor is the absence of a prior
disciplinary record.
Case law addressing similar misconduct suggests disbarment is the
appropriate sanction in this matter. See In re: Walsh, 21 -0280 (La. 6/29/21), 319
So. 3d 281 (disbarment imposed upon an attorney who practiced law after he was
suspended, failed to advise his client of his suspension, and fraudulently filed
pleadings under his father’s name and bar roll number in an effort to conceal his
unauthorized practice of law ). The sole mitigating factor present falls far short of
outweighing the numerous aggravating factors. Thus, a downward deviation from
the baseline sanction is unwarranted.
Accordingly, we will adopt the committee’s recommendation and disbar
respondent.

9

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the hearing committee ,
and considering the record, it is ordered that Michael Isaias Rodriguez, Jr., Louisiana
Bar Roll number 27868, be and he hereby is disbarred. His name shall be stricken
from the roll of attorneys and h is license to practice law in the State of Louisiana
shall be revoked. 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.