In Re: Jesse P. Lagarde

Supreme Court of Louisiana
January 25, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: JESSE P. LAGARDE
No. 2022-B-01635
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Petition to extend probation;
_ _ _ _ _ _
January 25, 2023
Petition to extend probation granted. See order.
Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Genovese, J., dissents and would revoke probation.
WJC
JLW
JDH
JBM
PDG
01/25/2023 "See News Release 003 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
22-B-1635
I
N RE: JESSE P. LAGARDE
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
T
his disciplinary matter arises from a motion to revoke probation filed by the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Jesse P. Lagarde, for
his violation of additional Rules of Professional Conduct while on court- ordered
probation impos ed in In re: Lagarde , 21 -0797 (La. 9/27/21), 323 So. 3d 862
(“Lagarde I”), as well as for his failure to comply with his probation agreement for
that matter. After the ODC filed the motion, the parties entered into a joint
stipulation regarding respondent ’s violations and jointly recommended that
respondent’s probation be extended for one year with additional conditions. The
disciplinary board accepted the stipulations and filed the instant recommendation in
this court.
UNDE
RLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The record in Lagarde I demonstrated that respondent was retained to
represent Michael Scott Hollis in his pending child custody case. Respondent failed
to appear in court for a scheduled hearing, resulting in a judgment being entered
against Mr. Hollis. Thereafter, respondent ignored the many attempts made by Mr.
Hollis and his wife to communicate with him. Lastly, respondent failed to cooperate
with the ODC in its investigation of the disciplinary complaint filed against him.
Prior to the filing of formal charges in the Hollis matter, respondent and the
ODC filed a joint petition for consent discipline in this court. The parties proposed
01/25/23

2

that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months, fully deferred,
subject to a one-year period of probation governed by the following conditions:
1) During the period of probation, respondent shall complete the Ethics School
program offered by the Louisiana State Bar Association.
2) Six of respondent’s mandatory MCLE hours, during the term of probation,
shall be in the area of law office/practice management.
3) Respondent agrees to pay all costs of these proceedings.
We accepted the petition for consent discipline in Lagarde I on September 27,
2021. Our order provided that “[a]ny failure of respondent to comply with the
conditions of probation, or any misconduct during the probationary period, may be
grounds for making the deferred suspension executory, or imposing additional
discipline, as appropriate.”
Respondent’s probation commenced on November 3, 2021, when he executed
a formal probation agreement with the ODC. The probation agreement required that
respondent promptly respond to all requests of the ODC and provided that any
violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct may result in the revocation of
probation and/or the imposition of additional discipline.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Motion to Revoke Probation
After respondent was placed on probation in Lagarde I, the ODC received
disciplinary complaints from Patrick Ledet and Michael and Cynthia Bourg. On
October 5, 2022, the ODC filed a motion to revoke probation, alleging that
respondent failed to promptly respond to Mr. Ledet’s complaint and violated
additional Rules of Professional Conduct in both the Ledet an d Bourg matters.
Accordingly, the ODC prayed for the revocation of respondent’s probation and the

3

imposition of the previously deferred six-month suspension. Respondent did not file
an answer to the ODC’s motion to revoke probation.

Hearing on Revocation of Probation
This matter proceeded to a hearing before an adjudicative panel of the
disciplinary board on October 27, 2022 . At the outset of the hearing, the parties
submitted written Joint Stipulations agreeing that respondent violated his probation
agreement and the Rules of Professional Conduct. The parties jointly recommended
a modified probation sanction as a result of these violations. Respondent verbally
confirmed on the record his agreement to the stipulations and the joint sanction
recommendation. No testimony was presented.

Joint Stipulations
The parties jointly stipulated that respondent violated his probation in the
following ways:
1) In the Patrick Ledet matter, respondent failed to promptly respond to all
requests of the ODC and committed additional violations of the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
a. The ODC sent a copy of Mr. Ledet’s complaint to respondent on April
4, 2022 and requested a response within fifteen days. Respondent was
served with the complaint at his primary regis tration address on April
6, 2022, but he did not timely respond. Respondent finally provided a
response to Mr. Ledet’s complaint on May 9, 2022.
b. On June 22, 2022, the ODC provided respondent with a copy of a
supplemental complaint received from Mr. Ledet and requested a
response within fifteen days. Respondent did not timely respond.
Respondent finally provided an additional response on July 21, 2022.

4

c. Respondent’s failure to provide timely responses to the ODC violated
Rule 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
2) In the Michael and Cynthia Bourg matter, respondent committed additional
violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
a. Respondent failed to diligently represent the Bourgs in connection with
a writ application to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, in violation of
Rule 1.3 (neglect of a legal matter) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct.
b. Respondent failed to communicate with the Bourgs on June 28, 2022,
June 30, 2022, July 11, 2022, July 13, 2022, and July 19, 2022, in
violation of Rule 1.4 (failure to communicate) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct.
3) For the stipulated violations, additional discipline is appropriate, as follows:
a. Respondent’s probation shall be extended for an additional year;
b. Respondent agrees to participate in the Louisiana State Bar
Association’s Law Practice Management Program, with a requirement
that he attend the Solo and Small Firm Conference;
c. Respondent will surrender any papers and property in his possession to
which Michael and Cynthia Bourg are entitled. In the alternative,
respondent will make a diligent effort to obtain such papers and
property and/or have them returned to Michael and Cynthia Bourg, to
the extent they have not already been returned; and
d. Respondent will be cast t o pay all costs associated with these
proceedings.

5

Disciplinary Board Recommendation
The disciplinary board accepted the parties’ stipulations and found that
respondent has breached his probation agreement by failing to promptly respond to
requests fro m the ODC and by committing additional violations of the Rules of
Professional Conduct. The board recommended that respondent’s probation period
be extended and the conditions of probation be modified in accordance with the
recommendation of the parties set forth in the joint stipulations.1

DISCUSSION
Respondent and the ODC have stipulated that respondent violated his
probation agreement by failing to promptly respond to requests from the ODC and
by committing additional violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. As a
sanction for respondent’s violation, the parties have agreed, and the disciplinary
board has recommended, that the period of respondent’s probation will be extended
for one year with additional conditions.
Although respondent’s new misconduct is relatively minor, we note that it is
very similar to the misconduct for which he was originally placed on probation. This
ongoing pattern suggests that continued supervision and additional education are
necessary to ensure that respondent conforms his conduct to the Rules of
Professional Conduct. The sanction proposed by the parties accomplishes this goal
by extending the Lagarde I probationary period through the beginning of 2024 and
requiring that respondent receive training in law pra ctice management. Therefore,
we believe the stipulations of the parties appropriately address respondent’s
misconduct.

1 The board added that all other provisions and conditions of probation imposed in Lagarde I and
the probation agreement executed on November 3, 2021 will remain in full force and effect.

6

Based on this reasoning, we will accept the disciplinary board’s
recommendation.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the disciplinary board,
and considering the record filed herein, it is ordered that the one -year period of
probation imposed against respondent in In re: Lagarde, 21-0797 (La. 9/27/21), 323
So. 3d 862, be extended for an additional period of one year, commencing from the
date of finality of this judgment. During the extended period of probation,
respondent shall participate in the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Law Practice
Management Program, attend the Solo and Small Firm Conference, and return any
papers and property to which Michael and Cynthia Bourg are entitled. It is further
ordered that all other provisions and conditions of probation imposed by this court’s
order of September 27, 2021 and the probation agreement executed on November 3,
2021 shall remain in full force and effect. All costs of this proceeding are assessed
to respondent.