In Re: Gregory James Sauzer

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 09, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: GREGORY JAMES SAUZER
No. 2024-B-00125
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN
RE: Office of Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and
Recommendations (Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 09, 2024
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
Genovese, J., dissents finding the discipline too lenient.
JBM
JLW
JDH
SJC
WJC
PDG
04/09/2024 "See News Release 016 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
24-B-0125
I
N RE: GREGORY JAMES SAUZER
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, Gregory James Sauzer, an
attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana.
U
NDERLYING FACTS
In July 2022, respondent pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana to one count of failing to file federal income tax
returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. In the plea agreement, respondent
acknowledged that he actually failed to file federal income tax returns for the years
2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. In October 2022, respondent was sentenced to a two-
year period of probation and ordered to pay restitution of $28,863. He was also
ordered to perform 75 hours of unpaid community service.
DIS
CIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In November 2022, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging
that his conduct as set forth above violated the following provisions of the Rules of
Professional Conduct: Rules 8.4(a) (violation 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). In his answer to the formal charges,
04/09/24

2

respondent admitted the factual allegations contained therein and requested the
opportunity to be heard in mitigation.

Formal Hearing
The hearing committee conducted the hearing on April 5, 2023. Both parties
introduced documentary evidence. The ODC called respondent to testify before the
committee. Respondent called his current employers, attorneys David Salley and
Stephen Resor, to testify before the committee. At the outset of the hearing,
respondent confirmed his misconduct and admitted to the charged rule violations.
The hearing then proceeded on the issue of sanctions.

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the
hearing committee summarized the testimony as follows:
Respondent – Following his admission to the bar in 2013, respondent began a
criminal practice with the Regan Law Firm in 2014. In 2015, he joined the law office
of Jason Rogers Williams & Associates. During this time, respondent worked as an
independent contractor for both law firms. In 2019, he quit practicing criminal law.
In 2021, respondent was hired by Salley, Hite, Mercer & Resor (“the firm”), an
insurance defense law firm, where he is still employed.
Respondent admitted that his failure to file taxes was willful, but noted that
he had been enduring financial, professional, and emotional stress related to issues
arising from his practice of criminal law. Respondent stated that he has not been
subject to any prior disciplinary action or investigation. Respondent has paid the
restitution amounts in full, agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors in other
matters, and complied with the conditions of his probation. Respondent also stated
that he must complete 75 hours of community service, which he has yet to complete,

3

but indicated that he has two years from the date of sentencing to complete the
requirement.
David Salley – Mr. Salley testified that respondent has demonstrated high
integrity and the skills necessary to practice law. At the time respondent was hired,
respondent did not disclose the potential for criminal matters related to the failure to
file taxes; however, after learning of his criminal and disciplinary matters, the firm
elected to retain respondent based on his exceptional job performance. Mr. Salley
stated that if respondent was subject to any period of suspension, potential harm
could arise to the firm and its clients.
Stephen Resor – Mr. Resor testified that respondent possessed the experience,
skills, and integrity to practice law. However, Mr. Resor expressed some frustration
over respondent’s failure to initially disclose the criminal investigation. Mr. Resor
testified that mem bers of the firm believed respondent to be worthy of continued
employment. Mr. Resor stated that respondent was well received by his clients and
handled litigation matters in a competent and professional manner.
The committee accepted respondent’s admissions and made the following
additional findings:
1. Respondent’s gross income was $63,400 in 2015, $38,361 in 2016,
$40,660 in 2017, and $35,369 in 2018.
2. The failure to file tax returns was dishonest in nature.
3. Respondent is not a current public official.
4. Respondent has paid the full amount of restitution.
5. Based on the testimony of Mr. Salley and Mr. Resor, respondent has a good
professional reputation.
6. Respondent expressed remorse for his actions.

4

7. Respondent had a dishonest or selfish motive in failing to file his tax
returns, but his testimony that he was under emotional, professional, and
economic stress is credible.
The committee noted that respondent has admitted to violating Rules 8.4(a),
8.4(b), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and the record supports clear
and convincing evidence of these violations.
The committee further determined that respondent violated duties owed to the
public and the legal profession. He acted willfully and his misconduct caused actual
harm in that his taxes were not paid on time and cast the legal profession in a negative
light. Based on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee
determined that the baseline sanction is suspension.
The committee indicated that the only aggravating factor present is a dishonest
or selfish motive but also acknowledged that the failure to file tax returns for four
consecutive years reflects a pattern of misconduct. The committee determined that
the following mitigating factors are present: absence of a prior disciplinary record,
personal problems, timely good faith effort to make restitution, good character and
reputation, and remorse. The committee added that respondent’s dishonest or selfish
motives were mitigated by personal, professional, and economic pressure.
After further considering the prior jurisprudence of this court in similar cases,
the committee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law
for six months, with all but thirty days deferred, followed by one year of probation.
In addition, the committee “strongly suggest[ed]” that respondent use the period of
actual suspension to complete the community service hours as ordered by the plea
agreement.
The ODC filed an objection to the leniency of the sanction recommended by
the committee.

5

Disciplinary Board Recommendation
After review, the disciplinary board noted that respondent has admitted, and
the record supports, the factual allegations of the formal charges. The board added
that the factual findings of the hearing committee do not appear to be manifestly
erroneous and are supported by the record. The board adopted those findings with
the following limited revisions:
1. Respondent’s gross income for the four years in question totaled $178,060
($63,300 in 2015, $38,631 in 2016, $40,660 in 2017, and $35,469 in 2018).
2. Respondent is not a current or former public official.
3. Respondent has paid the full amount of restitution ordered by the federal
court in the criminal proceeding.
The board also made the following additional findings of fact:
1. Respondent’s total federal tax liability, not including penalties and
interest, was $36,266 ($13,273 for 2015, $8,613 for 2016, $9,160 for 2017,
and $5,220 for 2018).
2. Prior to the hearing, respondent paid all federal taxes, penalties, interest,
and restitution.
3. As a special condition of his criminal probation, respondent was ordered
to perform 75 hours of unpaid community service, as directed by the
United States Probation Officer, during the two-year probation period.
Based on these factual findings, the board determined respondent’s conduct
violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as stipulated.
The board determined that respondent violated duties owed to the public and
the legal profession. His conduct was knowing and willful. He caused harm to the
government in violating the system of truthful disclosure of income and in delaying
tax payments. His criminal behavior reflects adversely on the legal profession. The
board agreed with the committee that the baseline sanction is suspension.

6

The board determined that the following aggravating factors are present: a
dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, and illegal conduct. The board
determined that the following mitigating factors are present: absence of a prior
disciplinary record, personal or emotional problems, timely good faith effort to make
restitution or to rectify the consequences of the misconduct, full and free disclosure
to the disciplinary board and a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings,
inexperience in the practice of law, character or reputation, imposition of other
penalties or sanctions, and remorse.
After further considering the court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, a majority of the board recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for six months, with all but thirty days deferred, followed
by a one-year period of probation. The board also recommended that any failure by
respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, or any misconduct by
respondent from the date of the court’s imposition of sanction through completion
of his probationary period, wil l be grounds for making the deferred suspension
executory or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate. The board further
recommended respondent be assessed with the costs and expenses of this matter.
One board member concurred with the recommendations of the majority and
would further recommend that respondent be required to complete the community
service ordered in the federal criminal proceeding by the end of the active suspension
period recommended by the board. One board member dissented, on the ground that
the recommended sanction is too lenient.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the disciplinary board’s
recommendation.

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 the alleged misconduct has
been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re: Banks, 09-1212 (La. 10/2/09),
18 So. 3d 57.
The underlying facts of this matter are not in dispute, as re spondent has
admitted that he willfully failed to file four years of federal income tax returns. He
has also admitted to violating the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged, and the
record supports those rule violations. Therefore, the sole question presented for our
consideration is the appropriate sanction for this misconduct.
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).
The record also supports a finding that respondent violated duties owed to the
public and the legal profession. His conduct was knowing, if not intentional, and
caused actual harm. The record supports the aggravating and mitigating factors
found by the disciplinary board. The baseline sanction is suspension.
In In re: Cook , 10 -0092 (La. 4/16/10), 33 So. 3d 155, we held that four
principal factors have influenced the determination of an appropriate sanction in
cases involving the misdemeanor offense of failure to file an income tax return:
whether there is a pattern of failure to file over a number of years, the amount of
money involved, whether the attorney’s actions were selfish or dishonest in nature,

8

and whether the attorney is held to a higher standard as a result of having a position
as a public official. In Cook, an attorney failed to file tax returns for two years, and
his combined gross income for those years was $277,243. 1 Mr. Cook was not a
public official. The federal judge in his criminal case commented that Mr. Cook’s
actions did not appear to be motivated by greed or other selfish motives but related
to a period of financial pressure and family problems. For his misc onduct, we
imposed a six-month suspension, with three months deferred, followed by a one -
year period of supervised probation.
By comparison, and applying the factors set forth in Cook , we note that
respondent failed to file a tax return for four years, as opposed to two years in Cook,
but that his income and taxes for the four -year period were substantially less than
that in Cook. (Mr. Cook’s total gross income in two years was approximately
$100,000 higher than respondent’s total gross income in four years.) Unlike Mr.
Cook, respondent did act with a dishonest or selfish motive; however, the committee
found his testimony – that he was under emotional, professional, and economic stress
– to be credible. Like Mr. Cook, respondent was not a public official. After further
considering the numerous mitigating factors present in this matter, we agree that a
six-month suspension from the practice of law, with all but thirty days deferred,
followed by one year of probation, is an appropriate sanction in this matter.
Accordingly, we will adopt the recommendation of the hearing committee and
the disciplinary board and impose a six-month suspension from the practice of law,
with all but thirty days deferred, followed by a one-year period of probation. Prior
to seeking reinstatement, respondent shall show evidence that he has completed the
community service ordered in the federal criminal proceeding.

1 Mr. Cook pleaded guilty to two counts of misdemeanor failure to file a tax return and was
sentenced to five years of supervised probation on each count, to run concurrently. He was also
ordered to pay $121,233 in restitution, a $50 assessment, and $1,704 in prosecutorial costs.

9

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the hearing committee
and the disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Gregory
James Sauzer, Louisiana Bar Roll number 34972, be and he hereby is suspended
from the practice of law for a period of six months. It is further ordered that all but
thirty days of this suspension shall be deferred. Prior to seeking reinstatement,
respondent shall show evidence that he has completed the community service
ordered in the federal criminal proceeding.
Following reinstatement, respondent shall be placed on probation for a period
of one year. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent and
the ODC execute a formal probation plan. Any failure of respondent to comply with
the conditions of probation, or any misconduct by respondent from the date of the
court’s imposition of sanction through completion of his probationary period, will
be grounds for making the deferred suspension executory or imposing additional
discipline, 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.