In Re: Juan Carlos Labadie

Supreme Court of Louisiana
January 18, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: JUAN CARLOS LABADIE
No. 2022-B-01552
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Office of the Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) - Applicant Other; Findings and
Recommendations (Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
January 18, 2023
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
McCallum, J., dissents for reasons assigned by Justice Crichton.
JDH
JLW
JTG
PDG
01/18/2023 "See News Release 002 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2022
-B-1552
I
N RE: JUAN CARLOS LABADIE
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
T his disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Juan Carlos Labadie, a disbarred
attorney.
PRI
OR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY
Before we address the current charges, we find it helpful to review
respondent’s prior disciplinary history. Respondent was admitted to the practice of
law in Louisiana in 1996.
In 2011, respondent consented to be suspended from the practice of law for
one year and one day, fully deferred, subject to a two-year period of supervised
probation with conditions, for maintaining incomplete records of his client trust
account, which resulted in a negligent commingling and conversion of funds. In re:
Labadie, 11-1021 (La. 6/24/11), 65 So. 3d 152 (“Labadie I”).
In 2016, we placed respondent on interim suspension for threat of harm to the
public. In re: Labadie, 16-0884 (La. 8/31/16), 199 So. 3d 607. In 2018, we disbarred
respondent, retroactive to the date of his interim suspension, for neglecting legal
matters, fail ing to return unearned fees, making false statements regarding the
integrity of a judge , committing multiple acts of domestic violence , and failing to
cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. In re: Labadie, 18-1033 (La. 10/29/18),
255 So. 3d 558 (“Labadie II”).
01/18/23

2

Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the misconduct at
issue in the instant proceeding.

FORMAL CHARGES
In 2018, Detective John Wiebelt III of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office
served as a member of a tactical team conducting police surveillance on a Terrytown
residence pursuant to a Crimestoppers complaint. A confidential informant had
advised the surveillance team that cocaine was being sold from the residence.
On the evening of March 8, 2018, respondent appeared at the residence and
went inside. A short time later, respondent exited the residence, entered his vehicle,
and departed the location. He then committed a traffic violation, which provided
Detective Wiebelt with probable cause to pull over the vehicle.
The Jefferson Parish District Attorney’s Office notified the ODC of
respondent’s arrest in August 2018. After the criminal charges were resolved,
Detective Wiebelt provided a sworn statement to the ODC. During his statement ,
Detective Wiebelt indicated that respondent appeared to be extremely nervous at the
time of the traffic stop. Detective Wiebelt added that he summoned a K -9 unit to
the scene to perform a drug detection, and after the K-9 detected an odor of a narcotic
substance, respondent was placed under arrest and searched. During the search, a
clear bag containing a white powdery substance was found in respondent’s rear
pocket. The substance was field-tested and confirmed to be cocaine, a Schedule II
Controlled Dangerous Substance.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In February 2022, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging
that his conduct, as set forth above, violated the following provisions of the Rules of
Professional Conduct: Rules 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct)

3

and 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act reflecting adversely on the lawyer’s
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer).
Respondent failed to answer the for mal 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). No formal
hearing was held, but the parties were given an opportunity to file with the 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 and the exhibits in
the record, the hearing committee adopted the deemed admitted factual allegations
set forth in the formal charges as its factual findings. The committee determined
that these facts establish by clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated
the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.
The committee determined that respondent violated duties owed to the public.
He knowingly violated the laws of the State of Louisiana, causing potential harm to
others through his possession of an i llegal narcotic/controlled substance and doing
so while he was driving a vehicle, which presented a high risk of harm to the public.
Relying on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee
determined the baseline sanction is suspension.
The committee determined the following ag gravating factors are present: a
prior disciplinary record, 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, substantial experience in the
practice of law, and illegal conduct. The committee determined no mitigating factors
are present.

4

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the committee cited In re:
Clark, 09-1631 (La. 12/1/09), 25 So. 3d 728, wherein an attorney was charged with
possession with intent to distribute marijuana, distribution of marijuana, possession
of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The court suspended him from
the practice of law for two years. Next, the committee cited In re: Steinhardt, 04 -
0011 (La. 9/9/04), 883 So. 2d 404, wherein an attorney pled guilty to misdemeanor
possession of marijuana. The court suspended her for three years, with two years
deferred in light of h er sincere attempts at rehabilitation. Finally, the committee
cited In re: Jackson , 94-2261 (La. 9/15/95), 660 So. 2d 838, wherein an attorney
was convicted of knowingly making false official statements and wrongfully using
controlled dangerous substances (cocaine and marijuana). The court suspended him
for two years.
After further considering this court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the committee recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for two years.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing 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.

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, §

5

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 admitte d factual allegations. In re: Donnan , 01 -3058 (La.
1/10/03), 838 So. 2d 715.
In this deemed admitted matter, the record supports a finding that respondent
was arrested for possession of cocaine. Accordingly, he has violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.
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).
The record supports a finding that respondent knowingly violated duties owed
to the public and the legal profession. His conduct caused the potential for serious
harm. The baseline sanction for this type of misconduct is suspensio n. We agree
with the hearing committee’s assessment of the aggravating factors and its
determination that no mitigating factors are supported by the record.
Of the cases cited by the committee, In re: Clark , 09-1631 (La. 12/1/09), 25
So. 3d 728, is the most instructive. In Clark , an attorney was charged with

6

possession with intent to distribute marijuana, distribution of marijuana, possession
of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Several mitigating factors were
present, including the absenc e of a disciplinary record. For his misconduct, we
suspended the attorney from the practice of law for two years.
Notably, the “distribution” issues in Clark are not present in the instant case.
Therefore, the facts in Clark are arguably more severe. Ho wever, the attorney in
Clark had several mitigating factors present, including the absence of a prior
disciplinary record. Respondent, on the other hand, has a significant disciplinary
record and no m itigating factors are present. On balance, these additional
considerations provide a sufficient basis for imposing the sanction imposed in Clark.
Accordingly, we will adopt the committee’s recommendation and suspend
respondent from the practice of law for two years.1

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee,
and considering the record, it is ordered that Juan Carlos Labadie , Louisiana Bar
Roll number 24145, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for two
years. 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.

1 Because respondent is disbarred, the effect of our judgment will be to extend by two years the
minimum period which must elapse before he may seek readmission to the practice of law. See
In re: White, 00-2732 (La. 4/25/01), 791 So. 2d 602.