In Re: Sonya Eloyace Hall

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 03, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: SONYA ELOYACE HALL
No. 2024-B-00029
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Office of Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and
Recommendations (Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 03, 2024
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
Crichton, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, and assigns reasons.
JDH
JLW
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
04/03/2024 "See News Release 015 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 202
4-B-0029
I
N RE: SONYA ELOYACE HALL
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Sonya Eloyace Hall, an attorney
licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently suspended from practice.
PR
IOR 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 1997.
In December 2021, respondent consented to be suspended from the practice
of law for one year and one day, with all but thirty days deferred, followed by a two-
year period of probation with conditions, for mishandling her client trust account
and failing to cooperate with the ODC’s investigation. In re: Hall, 21 -1389 (La.
12/21/21), 329 So. 3d 281 (“Hall I”). After respondent served the actual period of
suspension, her probationary period began on February 7, 2022.
In September 2023, the ODC and respondent filed a joint motion to revoke
probation based upon respondent’s violation of the conditions of her probation. We
granted the motion, thereby making the previously deferred portion of the one year
and one day suspension imposed in Hall I executory. In re: Hall, 23 -1081 (La.
9/26/23), 370 So. 3d 714 (“Hall II”).
04/03/24

2

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

FORMAL CHARGES
In July 2020, Renee Michelle Darensbourg hired respondent to represent her
in civil litigation pending in East Baton Rouge Parish. The parties entered into a
written fee agreement that set forth a $3,500 attorney’s fee for representation through
“pre-trial.” Respondent confirms that she received $3,500 from Ms. Darensbourg,
who also paid court costs.
Pursuant to the representation, respondent filed an answer to the supplemental
and amending petition, a third- party demand, and a corrected third- party demand,
but the last activity of record is correspondence in which respondent provided the
clerk of court with corrected service information. Although the correspondence is
dated July 30, 2021, it was not filed into the record until October 6, 2021.
On January 6, 2022, Ms. Darensbourg contacted respondent seeking
information concerning the status of her legal matter. Respondent advised that she
was under active suspension and was unable to discuss the matter until the
suspension ended. Although respondent satisfied the requirements for reinstatement
as of January 24, 2022, Ms. Darensbourg was unable to contact respondent or
confirm that any further action was taken on her behalf.
In August 2022, Ms. Darensbourg filed a complaint against respondent with
the ODC. In February 2023, respondent advised Ms. Darensbourg by text message
that she was withdrawing from the representation. However, respondent did not
provide documentation to establish that she did, in fact, file a motion to withdraw
with the district court, and the court record does not reflect such a filing. Respondent
did not return any of the fee paid by Ms. Darensbourg.

3

Respondent failed to respond to the first notice of the complaint or comply
with the ODC’s request for a supplemental response, necessitating the issuance of a
subpoena compelling her appearance at a sworn statement. The subpoena included
an order instructing respondent to produce the supplemental response, a copy of the
client file, and the financial records associated with the representation. Respondent
appeared for the sworn statement and provided the ODC with a copy of the file ;
however, she did not produce the financial records or the supplemental response.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In July 2023, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging her
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), 1.16(c) (a lawyer
must comply with applicable law requiring notice or permission of a tribunal when
terminating a representation), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the
representation), 3.2 (failure to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation), 8.1(c)
(failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), and 8.4(a) (violation of the
Rules of Professional Conduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
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 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

4

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 respondent violated duties owed to her client, the
legal system, and the legal profession. Respondent acted negligently and
intentionally, and her conduct caused actual harm. Relying on the ABA’s Standards
for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined the baseline sanction is
suspension.
The committee determined that the following aggravating factors are present:
a prior disciplinary record, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, substantial
experience in the practice of law, and indifference to making restitution. The
committee determined that the only mitigating factor is th e absence of a dishonest
or selfish motive.
Based upon the above findings, the c ommittee recommended respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for six months, with this suspension to run
consecutively to the suspension imposed in Hall II. The committee also
recommended respondent be ordered to provide an accounting to Ms. Darensbourg
and provide restitution of any unearned fees. The committee further recommended
respondent be assessed with all costs and expenses of 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 triers of fact and conduct an
independent review of the record to determine whether the alleged misconduct has

5

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 f actual 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
neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, improperly terminated
a representation, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. Based
on these findings, 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 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).

6

The record supports a finding that respondent knowingly violated duties owed
to her client, the legal system, and the legal profession. Her conduct caused actual
harm. The baseline sanction for this type of misconduct is suspension. Aggravating
factors include a prior disciplinary record, a pattern of misconduct, substantial
experience in the practice of law, and indifference to making restitution. The only
mitigating factor supported by the record is the absence of a dishonest or selfish
motive.
Based on our review, we agree that a six-month suspension from the practice
of law is appropriate for respondent’s misconduct.
1 In In re: Johnson, 21-1558 (La.
1/26/22), 331 So. 3d 902, an attorney neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate
with a client, failed to properly withdraw from a representation, failed to fulfill his
professional obligations, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in i ts investigation.
His conduct was knowing and caused actual harm. Aggravating factors included
multiple offenses, vulnerability of the victim, and substantial experience in the
practice of law. Mitigating factors included the absence of a prior disciplinary
record, personal or emotional problems, full and free disclosure to the disciplinary
board or a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, and remorse. For this
misconduct, we suspended the attorney from the practice of law for six months.
By comparison, we note that the attorney in Johnson had several mitigating
factors present, including the absence of a prior disciplinary record. Respondent, on
the other hand, has only one mitigating factor present. She has also been disciplined
in the past. However, the attorney in Johnson had additional misconduct based on
his failure to comply with his professional obligations. On balance, we believe these

1 The misconduct in Hall I occurred between 2017 and 2019, while the misconduct in the instant
matter occurred between 2021 and 2023. Because there is no overlap in these time periods, the
sanction analysis set forth in Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Chatelain, 573 So. 2d 470 (1991), is not
applicable.

7

considerations provide a sufficient basis for imposing the same sanction imposed in
Johnson.
Accordingly, we will adopt the hearing committee’s recommendation and
suspend respondent from the practice of law for six months. This suspension shall
run consecutively to the suspension imposed in Hall II . We will also order
respondent to provide Ms. Darensbourg with an accounting and a refund of any
unearned fees.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee,
and considering the record, it is ordered that Sonya Eloyace Hall, Louisiana Bar Roll
number 25323, be and s he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for six
months. This suspension shall run consecutively to the suspension imposed in In re:
Hall, 23-1081 (La. 9/26/23), 370 So. 3d 714. It is further ordered that respondent
shall provide an accounting and a refund of unearned fees, with legal interest, to
Renee Michelle Darensb ourg. 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.