In Re: Jeffery Dee Blue

Supreme Court of Louisiana
October 10, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: JEFFERY DEE BLUE
No. 2023-B-00968
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Office of Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and
Recommendations (Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
October 10, 2023
Disbarment imposed. See per curiam.
PDG
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
10/10/2023 "See News Release 043 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2
023-B-0968
I
N RE: JEFFERY DEE BLUE
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Jeffery Dee Blue , an attorney
licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently ineligible.1
F
ORMAL CHARGES
Count I – The Atkins Matter
In March 2017, Channel Atkins hired respondent to handle her divorce and to
obtain a restraining order on her behalf. The fee agreement was $2,000, plus
expenses.2 Thereafter, Ms. Atkins made several attempts to contact respondent but
was unsuccessful. Respondent delayed the completion of the matter, which caused
Ms. Atkins to incur a significant amount of debt because she had to live off of credit
cards after her interim spousal support expired.
In February 2020, the ODC received Ms. Atkins’ disciplinary complaint
against respondent. The ODC granted respondent’s request for an extension of time
to submit a written response to the complaint. Nevertheless, he failed to do so,
necessitating the issuance of a subpoena to obtain his sworn statement. On July 28,
1 Respondent has been ineligible to practice law since October 20, 2020 for failing to pay bar dues
and the disciplinary assessment. Thereafter, he also became ineligible for failing to comply with
mandatory continuing legal education requirements and failing to submit the trust account
disclosure statement.
2 The record reflects that Ms. Atkins paid respondent $2,000 on March 10, 2017.
10/10/23

2

2020, respondent appeared for his sworn statement, during which he informed the
ODC that he was in the process of shutting down his law practice. During the sworn
statement, the ODC gave respondent thirty days to submit a written response to the
complaint and provide a copy of Ms. Atkins’ file and proof that he had refunded the
unearned fee. Respondent failed to provide any of this requested information and
never refunded Ms. Atkins’ fee.
Subsequently, the ODC received notice that respondent was declared
ineligible to practice law on October 20, 2020 for failing pay his bar dues. On June
18, 2021, he was additionally declared ineligible for failing to comply with
mandatory continuing legal education requirements for 2020.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (failure to act
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to
communicate with a client), 1.5 (fee arrangements), 1.15(a) (safekeeping property
of clients or third persons), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the
representation), 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).

Count II – The Holmes Matter
In February 2018, Cassi Holmes hired respondent to handle her father’s
succession, paying him a $2,500 flat fee. Ms. Holmes believed that the paperwork
for her father’s annuity account had been fraudulently changed. Therefore, she
brought in a handwriting expert to examine the documents. Respondent failed to
communicate with the expe rt by a certain date, as Ms. Holmes had requested, and
the expert is now retired.

3

Respondent also failed to meet with Ms. Holmes when she would travel to
Louisiana from California and did not provide any proof that he had actually worked
on her father’s succession. Ms. Holmes had another attorney check with the court,
and the attorney discovered that, as of August 2019, no succession pleadings had
been filed. On August 16, 2019, Ms. Holmes wrote to respondent to terminate the
representation and to request a refund of the $2,500. Respondent failed to comply
with the refund request.
In January 2020, the ODC received Ms. Holmes’ disciplinary complaint
against respondent. Despite accepting the notice of the complaint, respondent failed
to submit a written response, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena to obtain his
sworn statement. On July 28, 2020, respondent appeared for his sworn statement.
During the sworn statement, the ODC gave respondent thirty days to submit a written
response to the complaint and provide a copy of Ms. Holmes’ file and proof that he
had refunded the unearned fee. Respondent failed to provide any of this requested
information and never refunded Ms. Holmes’ fee.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15(a), 1.16(d), 8.1(c),
and 8.4(c).

Count III – The Berryhill Matter
In August 2018, Thomas Berryhill hired respondent to represent him in a
criminal matter, paying him a total of $4,000. Respondent neglected the matter and
failed to provide Mr. Berryhill with copies of documents related to his case. More
specifically, although Mr. Berryhill wished to proceed to trial to prove his innocence,
respondent convinced him to accept a plea agreement he did not want.
In September 2019, Mr. Berryhill was sentenced and was given thirty days to
file an appeal. Mr. Berryhill told respondent he wanted to appeal his conviction.

4

Thereafter, respondent did not return telephone calls from Mr. Berryhill’s family and
did not respond to Mr. Berryhill’s letters.
In August 2020, the ODC received Mr. Berryhill’s disciplinary complaint
against respondent. Although respondent accepted the notice of the complaint, he
failed to submit a response. He also f ailed to refund any portion of the fee Mr.
Berryhill paid.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15(a), 1.16(d), 8.1(c),
and 8.4(c).

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In May 2022, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent as set forth
above. Respondent failed to file an answer to 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 facts set forth
in the formal charges. Additionally, the committee found that, in the Atkins matter,
respondent intentionally abandoned Ms. Atkins’ legal matter and did not take
adequate steps to notify her and protect her interests. Regarding the Holmes matter,
the committee additionally found that, during his sworn statement, respondent
admitted he did not properly handle the succession and owed Ms. Holmes a full

5

refund. The committee further found that respondent intentionally abandoned Ms.
Holmes’ legal matter and did not take adequate steps to notify he r and protect her
interests. With respect to the Berryhill matter, the committee additionally found that
respondent intentionally failed to pursue Mr. Berryhill’s case and refused to refund
the money owed to Mr. Berryhill following the abandonment of his law practice.
Based upon these facts, the committee determined respondent violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.
The committee then determined that respondent intentionally violated duties
owed to his clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. His
conduct caused actual harm to his clients who paid for legal services not performed
and to the legal profession by his refusal to cooperate with the ODC. After reviewing
the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined the
baseline sanction is suspension.
Based upon the record submitted, the committee found no mitigating factors
present. In aggravation, however, the committee found the following: a dishonest
or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction
of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders
of the disciplinary agency, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the
conduct, vulnerability of the victims, and indifference to making restitution.
After further considering the court’s prior case law addressing similar
misconduct, the committee recommended respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for two years. The committee further recommended that respondent
be ordered to make full restitution, with interest, to the clients who are the subject of
this proceeding.
The ODC filed an objection to the committee’s report, arguing the
recommended sanction was too lenient.

6

Disciplinary Board Recommendation
After reviewing this matter, the disciplinary board determined that the hearing
committee’s factual findings are not manifestly erroneous and adopted same. Based
upon these facts, the board agreed with the committee that respon dent violated the
Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.
The board then determined respondent knowingly and intentionally violated
duties owed to his clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession.
Respondent’s conduct caused actual harm to his clients, especially due to his failure
to refund unearned fees and his failure to provide his clients with a copy of their file.
Respondent’s failure to cooperate with the ODC also caused actual harm to the legal
profession. Unlike the committee, the board determined that the ABA’s Standards
for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions support disbarment as the baseline sanction.
In aggravation, the board found a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of
misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding
by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency,
refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, vulnerability of the
victims, and indifference to making restitution. In mitigatio n, the board found the
absence of a prior disciplinary record and personal or emotional problems.
3
After further considering the court’s prior case law addressing similar
misconduct, the board recommended that respondent be disbarred. The board
further recommended that respondent be ordered to make restitution in the amount
of $2,000 to Ms. Atkins, $2,500 to Ms. Holmes, and $4,000 to Mr. Berryhill and be
ordered to provide each of them with their file.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection t o the board’s
recommendation.

3 During his sworn statement, respondent testified that he was suffering from anxiety and
depression, his wife was sufferi ng from health problems, and he and his wife were experiencing
marital issues.

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 t he 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, §
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 admitted factual allegations. In re: Donnan , 01 -3058 (La.
1/10/03), 838 So. 2d 715.
The record of this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent
abandoned his law practice, resulting in the neglect of three client matters, failed to
communicate with the clients, failed to refund their unearned fees, failed to return
their files, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. The record
further supports a finding that respondent 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 t hat 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

8

(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).
Respondent knowingly and i ntentionally violated duties owed to his clients
and the legal profession. His conduct caused actual harm to his clients and the
attorney disciplinary system. Regarding the baseline sanction, Standard 4.41 of the
ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanct ions is applicable here. Pursuant to
Standard 4.41, disbarment is appropriate when any of the following occur:
(a) a lawyer abandons the practice and causes serious or
potentially serious injury to a client; or

(b) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a
client and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a
client; or

(c) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with respect to
client matters and causes serious or potentially serious
injury to a client.

In light of respondent’s abandonment of his law practice, we agree with the
disciplinary board that the applicable baseline sanction in this matter is disbarment.
Aggravating factors include a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad
faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply
with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, vulnerability of the victims, and
indifference to making restitution. The board’s findings regarding mitigating factors
are supported by the record.
Case law further supports disbarment as the baseline sanction. For example,
in In re: Hawkins, 22-0675 (La. 6/28/22), 341 So. 3d 519, an attorney abandoned his
law practice, resulting in the neglect of at least six client matters, failed to
communicate with said clients, failed to provide some of the clients with their file,
and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. For this knowing

9

misconduct, we disbarred the attorney. Likewise, in In re: Boutte , 18-0901 (La.
9/21/18), 252 So. 3d 862, an attorney abandoned her law practice, resulting in the
neglect of at least two client matters, failed to communicate with said clients, failed
to refund unearned fees and return a file to one client, and failed to cooperate with
the ODC in its investigation. For this knowing misconduct, we disbarred the
attorney and ordered her to make restitution.
In light of this case law, as well as the numerous aggravating factors present,
a downward deviation from the baseline sanction is unwarranted. Accordingly, we
will adopt the board’s recommendation and disbar respondent. We will further order
respondent to make restitution in the amount of $2,000 to Ms. Atkins, $2,500 to Ms.
Holmes, and $4,000 to Mr. Berryhill and order him to provide each of them with
their file.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the hearing committee
and the disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Jeffery Dee
Blue, Louisiana Bar Roll number 35015, 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 further ordered that respondent shall make
restitution in the amount of $2,000 to Channel Atkins, $2,500 to Cassi Holmes, and
$4,000 to Thomas Berryhill and shall provide each of them with their file. 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.