In Re: Donovan Kenneth Hudson

Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 19, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: DONOVAN KENNETH HUDSON
No. 2023-B-01261
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
December 19, 2023
Disbarment imposed. See per curiam.
JDH
JLW
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
12/19/2023 "See News Release 055 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2
023-B-1261
I
N RE: DONOVAN KENNETH HUDSON
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
Th
is disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Donovan Kenneth Hudson, an
attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently on interim suspension
for threat of harm to the public. In re: Hudson, 22-0942 (La. 6/23/22), 340 So. 3d
879.
F
ORMAL CHARGES
Count I
In March 2022, the ODC received a complaint against respondent from Judges
Jeffrey S. Johnson and Brian K. Abels of the 21st J udicial District Court for the
Parishes of Livingston, Tangipahoa, and St. Helena. The ODC opened an
investigation which revealed that in an effort to cure title to property, respondent had
generated two bogus court orders, using manufactured docket numbers, and forged
the signatures of the judges on the bogus orders. After verifying that the signatures
were forgeries and that there was no such docket number as reflected on the “orders,”
the judges alerted law enforcement. On February 21, 2022, respondent was arrested
on two counts of forgery and two counts of presenting forged court orders, in
violation of La. R.S. 14: 72. Responde nt self-reported his arrest to the ODC, but
provided no details or acknowledgement of his conduct, nor did he assert a Fifth
Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
12/19/23

2

Respondent then failed to respond to the ODC’s requests for a response and
an explanation for his conduct, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena directing
him to appear for a sworn statement on May 2, 2022. Despite being personally
served with the subpoena, respondent failed to appear for the sworn statement.
The ODC alleged that res pondent’s conduct violated Rules 8.1(c) (failure to
cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), 8.4(a) (violatio n of the Rules of
Professional Conduct), 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely
on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer), and 8.4(c)
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) of
the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count II
In December 2021, Shuamanda Papillion hired respondent to assist her in
securing a financing agreement on a vehicle she had purchased through Vroom. She
paid respondent $3,000 and received his commitment that the issues would remedied
by February 2022. Respondent initially invented explanations for what he claimed
he was doing and then ceased all communications with Ms. Papillion. As of March
2022, he had not resolved the issue. Ms. Papillion contacted Vroom and was able to
obtain the needed information on her own. Despite Ms. P apillion’s repeated
requests, respondent did not return her original documents or refund the $3,000 fee.
1
In April 2022, Ms. Papillion filed a complaint against respondent with the
ODC. Respondent was personally served with notice of the complaint and asked to
respond to same, but he failed to do so. Consequently, the ODC issued a subpoena
directing respondent to appear for a sworn statement on September 7, 2022. Despite

1 The record reflects that the Louisiana State Bar Association’s (“LSBA”) Client Assistance Fund
has approved a payment of $3,000 to Ms. Papillion.

3

being personally served with the subpoena, respondent failed to appear for the sworn
statement.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated Rules 1.3 (failure to act
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to
communicate with a client), 1.5(f)(5) (failure to refund an unearned fee), 8.1(c), and
8.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count III
On May 14, 2021, respondent was arrested in St. Landry Parish on charges
of resisting an officer by force of violence, driving on a roadway laned for traffic,
careless operation of a motor vehicle, and signal lamps required. The events started
when a Deputy Sheriff was stopped in traffic for a red light. Respondent drove his
vehicle into the lane designated for a left- turn only and then executed a right- turn
through the red light. When the deputy pulled him over, respondent reportedly made
racist comments towards the deputy and refused to follow instructions to keep his
hands out of his vehicle. When respondent next inserted his hands into the pockets
of his pants, the deputy tried to restrain him (for safety). Respondent resisted while
shouting at the deputy, who then had to deploy a Taser, which was ineffective. The
deputy was ultimately able to restrain respondent’s hands and effect his arrest.
The ODC opened an investigation into respondent’s arrest. Respondent was
personally served with notice of the complaint and asked to respond to same, but he
failed to do so. Consequently, the ODC issued a subpoena directing respondent to
appear for a sworn statement on September 7, 2022. Despite being personally served
with the subpoena, respondent failed to appear for the sworn statement.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated Rules 8.1(c), 8.4(a) and
8.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

4

Count IV
The ODC received a complaint filed against respondent from attorney Jacob
H. Hargett, alleging that respondent had failed to timely file suit on behalf of Bella
Joseph, a former client of respondent’s, thereby allowing her claim to prescribe.
After all attempts to discuss the matter with respondent had failed, Mr. Hargett filed
a legal malpractice suit against respondent. Thereafter, respondent failed to file
responses to requests for production, failed to appear for a hearing on a motion to
compel discovery on a t least two occasions, and then failed to appear for a third
hearing. When respondent then failed to provide discovery by the court’s deadline,
he was held in contempt of court.
The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(d)
(engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the Rules of
Professional Conduct.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
The ODC filed formal charges, as set forth above, against respondent in
February 2023. 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 adopted the deemed admitted factual allegations of the formal charges as

5

its factual findings. Based on those facts, the committee determined respondent
violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.
The committee determined respondent violated duties owed to his clients, the
public, and the legal profession. He acted both i ntentionally and negligently, and
his conduct caused harm to his clients. His most egregious cond uct involves the
forgeries of the judges’ signatures, and is “woefully inconsistent with how a member
of the bar should conduct himself and is highly prejudicial to the administration of
justice.” Relying on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctio ns, the
committee determined the baseline sanction is disbarment.
The committee determined that the following aggravating factors are present:
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 agenc y, vulnerability of the victim, substantial experience in the
practice of law (admitted 1991), and illegal conduct. The committee determined that
no mitigating factors are present.
Based on the above, the committee recommended respondent be disbarred,
retroactive to the date of his interim suspension. The committee also recommended
respondent be ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $3,000 to the LSBA’s
Client Assistance Fund. The committee further recommended he be ordered to pay
all costs associated with this proceeding.
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 trie rs of fact and conduct an

6

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. While we are not bound in any way by the findings and
recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, we have held the
manifest error standard is applicable to the committee’s factual findings. See In re:
Caulfield, 96 -1401 (La. 11/25/96), 683 So.2d 714; In re: Pardue , 93 -2865 (La.
3/11/94), 633 So.2d 150.
The record in this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent

neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, failed to refund an
unearned fee, committed criminal conduct , engaged in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice, engaged in dishonest and deceitful conduct, and failed to
cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. This conduct violates the Rules of
Professional Conduct as charged.
Having found evidence of professional misconduct, w e 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 S o. 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 further supports a finding that respondent violated duties owed to
his clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. He acted knowingly
and intentionally, and his conduct caused actual harm. The applicable baseline
sanction is disbarment. In addition to the aggravating factors found by the hearing
committee, the record supports the aggravating factor of a prior disciplinary record

7

(2015 admonition for engaging in a conflict of interest). No mitigating factors are
present.
In a prior case with somewhat similar facts to those at issue in Count I , we
imposed a three-year suspension with all but one year and one day deferred. In re:
Ellis, 98-0078 (La. 5/1/98), 710 So. 2d 794. In Ellis, a lawyer prepared a series of
falsified court judgments in an attempt to pacify a client who was pressuring him to
move his case along. At the time of his misconduct, Mr. Ellis was undergoing
treatment for cancer, which was found to have limited his judgment and abilities. In
imposing an actual period of suspension of one year and one day, we stated:
… [W]e conclude that respondent’s conduct represents a
serious breach of the ethical rules. Ordinarily, the sanction
for such conduct would be disbarment or a substantial
suspension. However, we agree there are considerable
mitigating factors present in this case, including
respondent’s medical condition and the fact that his
actions, although improper, did not cause serious harm to
his client. Based on all these factors, we con clude a
suspension from the practice of law for a period of three
years, with all but one year and one day deferred, is
appropriate discipline under the circumstances.

In Ellis, we found that the attorney’s misconduct was serious, but we took into
consideration that no serious client harm occurred and that compelling mitigating
circumstances were also present, including the attorney’s medical condition. In the
instant matter, respondent’s misconduct resul ted in actual harm to his clients and
none of the mitigating factors which supported leniency in Ellis have been proven.
Moreover, this matter involves additional counts of misconduct that were not present
in Ellis. Therefore, disbarment is appropriate.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee,
and considering the record, it is ordered that Donovan Kenneth Hudson , Louisiana
Bar Roll number 20873, be and he hereby is disbarred, retroactive to June 23, 2022,

8

the date of his interim suspension. 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 order ed that respondent shall make full restitution to Shuamanda
Papillion and/or the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Client Assistance Fund, as
appropriate. 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.