In Re: J. Maurice Thomas

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 25, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: J. MAURICE THOMAS
No. 2023-B-00136
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Office of Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and
Recommendations (Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 25, 2023
Permanent disbarment imposed. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Griffin, J., dissents and would order regular disbarment.
JBM
JLW
SJC
JTG
04/25/2023 "See News Release 020 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2023-B-0136
IN RE: J. MAURICE THOMAS
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, J. Maurice Thomas, an attorney
licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently suspended.
FORMAL CHARGES
In August 2007, the court interimly suspended respondent f rom the practice
of law for threat of harm to the public. In re: Thomas, 07-1720 (La. 8/23/07), 962
So. 2d 1074. In 2009, the court considered three sets of formal charges against
respondent and determined that he neglected legal matters, failed to commu nicate
with clients, failed to refund unused costs, failed to pay a third -party medical
provider despite signing a guarantee of payment, misrepresented the status of a case
to a client, practiced law while ineligible to do so, allowed his trust account to
become overdrawn, failed to file a proper registration statement with the Louisiana
State Bar Association, failed to register his trust account with the ODC, and failed
to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. For this knowing and intentional
misconduct, the court suspended respondent from the practice of law for three years,
retroactive to the date of his interim suspension, and ordered him to pay restitution.
In re: Thomas, 09-0867 (La. 6/19/09), 10 So. 3d 1223 (“ Thomas I”). Respondent
has not yet applied for reinstatement from his suspension imposed in Thomas I and
remains suspended from the practice of law at this time.
04/25/23

2

Following his suspension in Thomas I , respondent began providing legal
assistance to Albertha Dionne Badon with respect to a case she had pending in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Specifically, Ms.
Badon paid respondent more than $700 to review and prepare legal pleadings on her
behalf, to coach her about how to file the documents pro se, and to help her rehearse
for her deposition. Respondent advised Ms. Badon that he knew a lot about the law
and agreed to assist her since she was representing herself. However, respondent
failed to inform Ms. Badon that he was suspended from the practice of law.
At some point during the representation, Ms. Badon learned respondent was
a suspended attorney and confronted him about misleading her. In a series of emails,
he responded to her with extremely vulgar, aggressive , and threatening language. 1
In the emails, respondent also admitted to intentionally engaging in the unauthorized
practice of law.
In July 2021, Ms. Badon filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent.
Notices of the complaint sent to respondent’s primary, secondary, and preferred
addresses were returned. The ODC then issued a subpoena to obtain his sworn
statement. The ODC’s investigator attempted to serve respondent with the subpoena
at several addresses but was unsuccessful. The investigator a lso tried to contact
respondent via telephone and email, to no avail. To date, respondent has not
responded to the complaint or otherwise contacted the ODC.

1 Some of respondent’s tamer language toward Ms. Badon includes the following:
 “You’re g*dd*mn right you don’t think anything is wrong with you and that’s the number
one thing that is f***ing wrong with you.”
 “You ARE a f***ing trouble maker and it is NOT helping you.”
 “I am cursing because people f***ing up p*sses me off.”
 “If I believed in that sort of thing I’d say you’re possessed.”
 “If you keep F-ing with me, directly or indirectly, in any way whatsoever, you might just
p*ss me off. If you force me to fight,… you can’t begin to imagine how hard I will fight
for ME.”

3

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In August 2022, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, allegin g
that his conduct as set forth above violated the following provisions of the Rules of
Professional Conduct: Rules 5.5(a)(b) (engaging in the unauthorized practice of
law), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), and 8.4(c)
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).
Respondent failed to answer the 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). 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 committee’s consideration.

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the ODC’s deemed admitted submission, the hearing
committee made factual findings consistent with the deemed admitted factual
allegations set forth in the formal charges. Based on those facts, the committee
determined respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.
Specifically, the committee determined respondent violated Rule 5.5(a)(b) by
practicing law after being prohibited to do so in Thomas I, Rule 8.1(c) by failing to
cooperate with the ODC’s investigation of Ms. Badon’s complaint, and Rule 8.4(c)
by misleading Ms. Badon.
The committee then determined respondent intentionally violated duties owed
to his client, the public, and the legal system. His conduct had the potential to cause
serious harm to Ms. Badon because her legal rights could have been seriously
impacted by his misrepresentations and deceit. Based on the ABA’s Standards for
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , the committee determined the baseline sanction is

4

disbarment. The committee then determined that respondent’s conduct falls within
Guideline 8 (Following notice, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law during
the period of time in which the lawyer is suspended from the practice of law or
disbarred) of the permanent disbarment guidelines set forth in Supreme Court Rule
XIX, Appendix D.
In aggravation, the committee found the following factors 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, vulnerability of the victim, and illegal
conduct. The committee found no mitigating factors present.
After further considering this court ’s prior case law addressing similar
misconduct, the committee recommended respondent be permanently disbarred
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s
report. Therefore, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G), th e 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. Supreme 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

5

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
practiced law during his period of suspension ordered in Thomas I , misled Ms.
Badon about his status as a suspended attorney, and failed to cooperate with the ODC
in its investigation. This conduct amounts to a violation of the Rules of Professional
Conduct as charged.
Having found evidence of professional misconduct, we now turn to a
determination of the appropriate sanction for respondent’s actions. In determ ining
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 117 3
(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 further supports a finding that respondent intentionally violated
duties owed to his client, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. His
conduct had the potential to cause serious harm to these entities. We agree with the
hearing committee that the applicable baseline sanction is disbarment. We also
agree with the committee’s determination that no mitigating factors are present.
Aggravating factors include a prior disciplinary record, a dishonest or selfish motive,
and bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to
comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency.

6

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the committee has
recommended that respondent be permanently disb arred. On May 4, 2022, we
adopted amendments to Supreme Court Rule XIX related to permanent disbarment.
As is set forth in the order, permanent disbarment may be imposed only “upon an
express finding of the presence of the following factors: (1) the lawyer’s conduct is
so egregious as to demonstrate a convincing lack of ethical and moral fitness to
practice law; and (2) there is no reasonable expectation of significant rehabilitation
in the lawyer’s character in the future.” Respondent’s misconduct was undoubtedly
egregious. He collected legal fees from Ms. Badon, provided her with legal services
in such a way as to conceal his unauthorized practice of law, and intentionally misled
her regarding his status as a suspended attorney. When Ms. Badon finally
discovered his true identity and confronted him about being suspended from the
practice of law, he verbally abused and threatened her. In light of this conduct and
given his prior disciplinary history, we see no reasonable expectation of significant
rehabilitation in respondent’s character in the future.
Accordingly, we will adopt the committee’s recommendation and
permanently disbar respondent.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the hearing committee,
and considering the record, it is ordered that J. Maurice Thomas, Louisiana Bar Roll
number 27307, be and he hereby is permanently 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. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(A), it is
further ordered that respondent be permanently prohibited from being readmitted to
the practice of law in this state. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed
against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal

7

interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’ s judgment
until paid.