In Re: Edward Moses, Jr.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 29, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: EDWARD MOSES, JR.
No. 2024-B-00295
_ _
_ _ _ _
IN
RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Notice of Discipline in Another
Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule XIX, Section 21 and Motion to Initiate Reciprocal
Discipline Proceedings;
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 29, 2024
Reciprocal discipline imposed. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., dissents in part.
JLW
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
05/29/2024 "See News Release 025 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 20
24-B-0295
I
N RE: EDWARD MOSES, JR.
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
P
ursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
(“ODC”) filed a petition seeking the imposition of reciprocal discipline against
respondent, Edward Moses, Jr. , an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana,
based upon discipline imposed by the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana.
U
NDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Respondent was suspended by the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana for a period of one year based on conduct involving the filing
of frivolous litigation as well as attempts to co-opt his clients’ cases to assert his own
personal agenda. After receiving notice of the federal court order of discipline, the
ODC filed a motion to initiate reciprocal discipline proceedings in Louisiana,
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21. A copy of the order issued by the Middle
District of Louisiana was attached to the petition. On March 7, 2024, we rendered
an order giving respondent and the ODC thirty days to demonstrate why the
imposition of identical discipline would be unwarranted.
Respondent filed a timely response in which he asserted that reciprocal
discipline is unwarranted. He asserted that although he is an attorney, he did not
appear in these proceedings in his individual capacity, but rather solely in the
05/29/24

2

capacity of “the Christian Emperor d’Orleans Trust protector of the Atakapa Indian
‘Tribe of [symbols] Moses’ (Foreign) Express Spendthrift Trust.”

DISCUSSION
The standard for imposition of discipline on a reciprocal basis is set forth in
Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21(D). That rule provides:
Discipline to be Imposed. Upon the expiration of thirty
days from service of the notice pursuant to the provisions
of paragraph B, this court shall impose the identical
discipline … unless disciplinary counsel or the lawyer
demonstrates, or this court fi nds that it clearly appears
upon the face of the record from which the discipline is
predicated, that:

(1) The procedure was so lacking in notice or opportunity
to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due
process; or
(2) Based on the record created by the jurisdiction that
imposed the discipline, there was such infirmity of
proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the
clear conviction that the court could not, consistent
with its duty, accept as final the concl usion on that
subject; or
(3) The imposition of the same discipline by the court
would result in grave injustice or be offensive to the
public policy of the jurisdiction; or
(4) The misconduct established warrants substantially
different discipline in this state; …

If this court determines that any of those elements exists,
this court shall enter such other order as it deems
appropriate. The burden is on the party seeking different
discipline in this jurisdiction to demonstrate that the
imposition of the same discipline is not appropriate.

Our review of the record demonstrates respondent was afforded full due
process rights in the federal court and there is no infirmity of proof establishing the
misconduct. The discipline imposed by the federal court is not offensive to the
public policy of this state and is not substantially different from the discipline we
would impose under similar circumstances.

3

Nonetheless, we would be remiss if we did not comment on the nature of
respondent’s filings both in federal court and this court, which may be charitably
charactered as bizarre. These filings and respondent’s actions in federal court raise
serious questions as to whether respondent is competent to practice law without
endangering his clients or the public.
In light of these concerns, we will mandate that after serving his one -year
suspension, respondent shall not be eligible to seek reinstatement to the practice of
law in Louisiana pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(K), unless and until he
submits to a comprehensive mental health evaluation through the Judges and
Lawyers Assistance Program and files a copy of the evaluation report in this court
and with the ODC . We will further reserve the right of the ODC to object to
respondent’s reinstatement under Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(K) or seek any
other relief.

DECREE
For the reasons assigned, i t is ordered that respondent, Edward Moses, Jr. ,
Louisiana Bar Roll number 30646, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice
of law on a reciprocal basis for a period of one year . It is further ordered that
respondent shall not be eligible to apply for reinstatement to the practice of law in
Louisiana pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(K) unless and until he submits
to a comprehensive mental health evaluation through the Judges and Lawyers
Assistance Program and files a copy of the evaluation report in this court and with
the ODC. The right of t he ODC to object to respondent’s reinstatement under
Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(K) or seek any other relief is reserved.
Nothing in
our order should be read as precluding the reinstatement of respondent in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana if otherwise permitted
under the rules of that court ; however, under no circumstances shall respondent be

4

reinstated to the practice of law in Louisiana without an express order from this
court.