In Re: David R. Opperman

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 23, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: DAVID R. OPPERMAN
No. 2024-B-00148
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Office of Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and
Recommendations (Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 23, 2024
Permanent disbarment imposed. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., dissents and would impose regular disbarment.
Griffin, J., dissents and would impose regular disbarment.
JLW
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
04/23/2024 "See News Release 018 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 202
4-B-0148
I
N RE: DAVID R. OPPERMAN
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, David R. Opperman, an attorney
licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently on interim suspension based upon
his conviction of a serious crime. In re: Opperman, 22-0937 (La. 6/15/22), 339 So.
3d 634.
U
NDERLYING FACTS
In October 2020, respondent was charged in West Feliciana Parish with the
aggravated rape of a thirteen -year-old victim in 2003. In December 2020,
respondent was charged with felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile and accused of
committing that crime with a sixteen-year-old victim between August 2000 and July
2001.
On June 10, 2022, pursuant to a plea bargain with the Louisiana Attorney
General’s Office, respondent entered a plea to the amended offense of indecency
with juveniles (two counts). Specifically, respondent entered a plea of nolo
contendere to Count One, involving thirteen-year old victim E.B., and entered a plea
of guilty to Count Two, involving sixteen-year old victim K.R. Respondent was
sentenced to serve a total of fourteen years at hard labor, with a total of nine years
suspended, on both counts, and he will be permanently registered as a sex offender.
Respondent is currently in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections.
04/23/24

2

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In February 2023, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging
that his conduct as set forth above violated Rules 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct) and 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects
adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer) of the
Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent filed an answer to the formal charges,
in which he admitted to his illegal conduct with the sixteen-year-old but denied any
illegal conduct with respect to the thirteen-year-old. The matter then proceeded to a
formal hearing on the merits.

Hearing Committee Report
The hearing committee found that r espondent ple aded nolo contendere to
Count One of the criminal charges and guilty to Count Two. His conviction in both
counts is final. The evidence submitted by the ODC is conclusive evidence of
respondent’s guilt of the crime of indecency involving juveniles (two counts).
Based on the se facts, the committee found that respondent violated Rules
8.4(a) and 8.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The committee determined respondent intentionally violated duties owed to
the public and the legal profession. His conduct caused serious actual harm to the
victims of his crimes. Respondent’s misconduct, which was publicized in the media,
also brought d isrepute to the profession. Based on the ABA’s Standards for
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , the committee determined the baseline sanction is
disbarment.
The committee found the following aggravating factors present: a selfish
motive, a pattern of misconduct, vulnerability of the victims, substantial experience
in the practice of law (admitted 1991), and illegal conduct. The committee found

3

the following mitigating factors present: absence of a prior disciplinary record and
imposition of other penalties or sanctions.
Considering the foregoing, the committee recommended respondent be
permanently disbarred.
Respondent filed an objection to the hearing committee’s report.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation
After review, the board determined the hearing committee’s factual findings
are not manifestly erroneous and adopted same. The board also made the following
additional findings of fact:
1. Sometime between the 24th day of October 2003 and the 31st day of October
2003, r espondent committed Indecent Behavior Involving Juveniles with
E.B., age 13, by committing a lewd or lascivious act with the intention of
arousing the sexual desires of respondent, in violation of La. R.S. 14:81.
2. Between the 1st day of August 2000 and the 13th day of July 2001, respondent
committed Indecent Behavior Involving Juveniles with K.R. by committing a
lewd and lascivious act with another under the age of 17 years, and there was
an age difference of greater than two years between the two persons, with the
intent to gratify the sexual desires of either person, in violation of La. R.S.
14:81.
Based on these factual findings, the board determined respondent’s conduct
violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.
The board found that respondent intentionally violated duties owed to the
public and the legal profession, causing serious actual harm. The board agreed with
the committee that the applicable baseline sanction is disbarment.
In aggravation, the board found a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of
misconduct, multiple offenses, vulnerability of the victims, substantial experience in

4

the practice of law, and illegal conduct. In mitigation, the board found the absence
of a prior disciplinary record and the imposition of other penalties or sanctions.
After further considering the court’s prior case law addressing similar
misconduct, the board recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred for
his “egregiously unethical and abhorrent” misconduct involving “sexual crimes with
two juveniles.”
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the disciplinary board’s
recommendation.

DISCUSSION
Bar disciplinary matters come within the original jurisdiction of this court.
La. Const. art. V, § 5(B). When the disciplinary proceedings involve an attorney
who has been convicted of a crime, the conviction is conclusive evidence of guilt
and the sole issue presented is whether respondent’s crimes warrant discipline, and
if so, the extent thereof. Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19(E); In re: Boudreau , 02-
0007 (La. 4/12/02), 815 So. 2d 76; Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Wilkinson, 562 So.
2d 902 (La. 1990). The discipline to be imposed in a given case depends upon the
seriousness of the offense, the circumstances of the offense, and the extent of the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Perez, 550
So. 2d 188 (La. 1989).
In the instant case, respondent stands convicted of two counts of indecency
with juveniles. These crimes are felonies under state law and clearly warrant serious
discipline. The only issue to be resolved by this court is the appropriate sanction for
respondent’s misconduct.
Both the hearing committee and the disciplinary board have recommended
that respondent be permanently disbarred. On May 4, 2022, the court adopted
amendments to Supreme Court Rule XIX related to permanent disbarment. As is set

5

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.”
Here, respondent’s misconduct was clearly egregious. His convictions for
two sexual offenses involving juveniles “demonstrate[s] a convincing lack of ethical
and moral fitness to practice law.” Furthermore, the criminal offenses occurred
when respondent was serving as an assistant district attorney. Despite his position
of public trust, respondent engaged in serious criminal acts with very vulnerable
victims, ages 13 and 16. He expressed no remorse for his conduct at the hearing in
this matter. We ther efore find there is no reasonable expectation of significant
rehabilitation in respondent’s character in the future.
Based on these findings, we conclude the recommended sanction of
permanent disbarment is adequately supported under Supreme Court Rule XIX.
Accordingly, we will accept the disciplinary board’s recommendation and
permanently disbar respondent.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee,
and considering the record, it is ordered that David R. Opperman, Louisiana Bar Roll
number 20477, be and he hereby is permanently 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. 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

6

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