In Re: Lionel Burns, Jr.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
November 27, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: LIONEL BURNS, JR.
No. 2024-B-01119
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 27, 2024
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Griffin, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
JDH
SJC
JTK
WJC
JBM
11/27/2024 "See News Release 054 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2024-B-1119
IN RE: LIONEL BURNS, JR.
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Lionel Burns, Jr. , an attorney
licensed to practice law in Louisiana , but currently ineligible to practice. 1
PRIOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY:
Before we address the current charges, we find it helpful to review
respondent’s prior disciplinary. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in
Louisiana in 1998.
In 2006, respondent was admonished by the disciplinary board after being
found in contempt of court, twice, in the same case and over the same discovery
dispute. The following year, the board again admonished respondent for failing to
timely pay a third party.
In 2018, we considered a disciplinary matter in which respondent facilitated
the unauthorized practice of law by sending his paralegal to an attorney-only pretrial
conference. Respondent also was untruthful as to why he could not attend the
pretrial conference himself. For this misconduct, we suspended respondent for one
year and ordered him to attend Ethics School. In re: Burns, 17-2153 (La. 5/1/18),
1 On September 9, 2024, respondent was declared ineligible to practice law for failure to pay his
bar dues and the disciplinary assessment.
November 27, 2024
11/27/2024

2

249 So. 3d 811 (“Burns I”). Respondent remained suspended until May 17, 2019,
when he was reinstated to the practice of law.
Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the instant
misconduct.

FORMAL CHARGE S
Count I

In September 2016, complainants, Kimberly Stewart McDuffie and Mark
Crocklen, Sr., retained respondent to represent their son, Mark Crocklen, Jr., in a
criminal case in Jefferson Parish. Respondent agreed to represent Mark Jr. through
trial for a flat fee of $20,000. Ms. McDuffie paid respondent $10,000 via cashier’s
check, and Mr. Crocklen, Sr. paid the remaining $10,000 balance in bi -monthly
payments of $150.
In May 2018, while the representation was still ongoing, respondent was
suspended from the practice of law in Burns I. Respondent failed to notify Mark Jr.
of his suspension, as required by Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 26. He also failed to
return Mark Jr.’s client file or timely refund the unearned portion of the fee
complainants paid. Indeed, respondent accepted 24 separate payments of attorney’s
fees from Mr. Crocklen, Sr. after he was suspended. Furthermore, respondent failed
to withdraw from the representation of Mark Jr. and “appointed” another attorney to
handle the criminal case without Mark Jr.’s knowledge or prior consent.
Upon learning of respondent’s suspension, complainants attempted to
communicate with respondent, to no avail. Complainants then attempted to secure
new counsel for their son, but their efforts were unsuccessful due to a pending trial
date. In October 201 8, Mark Jr. pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve forty
years in prison.

3

In May 2019, in connection with his reinstatement efforts, respondent filed
with this court an affidavit certifying his full compliance with the suspension order;
however, respondent knew that he had not complied with the requirements of Rule
XIX, § 26, i ncluding the requirement to notify his client of his suspension.
In May 2020, complainants filed a complaint against respondent with the
ODC. In October 2022, respondent refunded a portion of the fee complainants paid.
The ODC alleges that respondent’s conduct in Count I violated the following
provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.4 (failure to communicate
with a client), 1.5(f)(5) (payment of fees in advance of services), 1.16(d) (obligations
upon te rmination of the representation), 3.4(c) (knowing disobedience of an
obligation under the rules of a tribunal), 5.5(e)(4) (a suspended lawyer shall not
receive, disburse or otherwise handle client funds), 8.1(a) (a lawyer shall not
knowingly make a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary
investigation), and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation).

Count II
In December 2021, Chadsidy Blackstone paid respondent $3,500 to represent
her in a disciplinary action brought against her by her employer. By June 2022, Ms.
Blackstone had become dissatisfied with the progress of the case. She terminated
respondent and requested that he return the fee she paid. In response, respondent
provided Ms. Blackstone with a “detailed bill” purporting to detail over $9,050
worth of legal work performed in the case. 2 In July 2022, Ms. Blackstone filed a
complaint against respondent with the ODC.

2 The bill consists mostly of texts and phone calls between Ms. Blackstone and respondent’s
paralegal.

4

In September 2022, the ODC took respondent’s sworn statement. During the
statement, respondent admitted that when Ms. Blackstone terminated the
representation, the disciplinary action he was hired to handle had not yet
commenced, and he had not done the l egal work he was retained to do. The day
after the sworn statement, respondent returned the fee Ms. Blackstone paid.
The ODC alleges that respondent’s conduct in Count II violated the following
provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.16(d), 8.4(a) (violation of
the Rules of Professional Conduct), and 8.4(c).

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In January 2023, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent. In June
2023, the ODC amended the formal charges to add additional allegations of
misconduct relating to Count I. In his answer to the formal charges, respondent
admitted that he did not notify Mark Jr. of his suspension and that he filed an
affidavit with the court incorrectly stating that he had notified his clients of his
suspension by certified mail (Count I). Respondent also admitted that he sent Ms.
Blackstone a detailed bill “containing an inadvertent calculation error” (Count II).
In all other respects, respondent denied that he violated the Rules of Professional
Conduct as alleged by the ODC.

Formal Hearing
The hearing committee conducted a formal hearing on November 6, 2023.
Both respondent and the ODC introduced documentary evidence. T he committee
heard testimony from the following witnesses: Deidre Peterson -Jefferson (the
attorney who represented Mark Jr. after respondent’s suspension); David Wolff (the
prosecutor in Mark Jr.’s criminal case); Mark Jr.; and Ms. Blackstone. Respondent
testified on his own behalf and on cross-examination by the ODC. He also stipulated

5

to all of the rule violations alleged by the ODC in both Count I and Count II of the
formal charges.

Hearing Committee Report
After considering the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the
hearing committee accepted the stipulation of facts and rule violations. The
committee also made the following additional factual findings:
1. Respondent’s suspension from the practice of law was effective May 16,
2018.
2. Respondent failed to file an affidavit with this court showing compliance with
this court’s order and rules.
3. Respondent was reinstated effective May 17, 2019.
4. On May 23, 2019, respondent filed a false affidavit with this court certifying
“full compliance with the court’s suspension order.”
5. On or about September 24, 2016, respondent was hired to provide legal
representation through the conclusion of a criminal matter involving Mark Jr.
6. Respondent did not notify opposing counsel in Mark Jr.’s case t hat he had
been suspended. Opposing counsel heard that respondent had been suspended
and filed a motion to determine counsel approximately two months after
respondent had been suspended.
7. No plea deal for Mark Jr. had been negotiated by the time respondent was
suspended.
8. Ms. Diedre Peterson -Jefferson handled the representation of various clients
for respondent, including Mark Jr., after respondent was suspended; she was
not involved in the cases, or contacted by respondent about the cases, prior to
respondent’s suspension.

6

9. On December 2, 2021, Ms. Chadsidy Blackstone entered into a fee agreement
with respondent and paid a $3,500 advanced fee.
10. On June 22, 2022, Ms. Blackstone emailed respondent terminating his legal
representation and requesting a return of money paid.
11. On June 23, 2022, respondent issued an invoice to Ms. Blackstone in the
amount of $9,050 for the period between October 2021 and June 2022. None
of the charges listed on this invoice related to work for which respondent had
been retained.
12. Mr. Blackstone filed a complaint with the ODC on July 1, 2022, and the
advanced fee was returned on or about September 27, 2022.
The committee determined respondent violated duties owed to his clients, the
legal system, and the legal profession. Respondent acted knowingly and
intentionally, causing actual harm by depriving Mark Jr.’s parents and Ms.
Blackstone of funds for a significant period of time. Mark Jr. was also left
unrepresented by the attorney he retained. The baseline sanction ranges from
suspension to disbarment.
The committee determined that the following aggravating factors are present:
a prior disciplinary record, a dishonest or selfish motive, multiple offenses, and
substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 1998). The committee
determined the only mitigating factor is respondent’s “full and free disclosure to the
disciplinary board and his cooperative attitude toward this proceeding.”
After further considering the court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the committee recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for two years.
Respondent filed an objection to the hearing committee’s report.

7

Disciplinary Board Recommendation
After review, the disciplinary board determined the hearing committee’s
factual findings are not manifestly erroneous and adopted same. In addition,
respondent stipulated that he violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged
in the formal charges.
The board determined respondent violated duties owed to his client, the legal
system, and the legal profession. Respondent acted knowingly and intentionally,
causing actual harm. He failed to notify his client, Mark Jr., or his client’s parents,
who hired respondent to represent their son and were continuing to make payments
to respondent, of his suspension. The board noted that there “is no way to know
whether [Mark Jr.] could have obtained a better result than the forty -year plea
agreement he accepted, but the potential existed that new counsel hired in a timely
manner may have achieved a better outcome.” Further, both Mark Jr.’s parents and
Ms. Blackstone were deprived of their funds for significant periods of time due to
respondent’s failure to refund the unearned fees. Based on the ABA’s Standards for
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the board determined the baseline sanction ranges from
suspension to disbarment.
The board determined that the following aggravating factors are present: a
prior disciplinary record, a dishonest or selfish motive, multiple offenses,
vulnerability of the victim, and substantial experience in the practice of law. The
board determined the sole mitigating factor is full and free disclosure to disciplinary
board and a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings.
Turning to the issue of appropriate sanction, the board agreed with the
committee that a two -year suspension is reasonable for respondent’s misconduct.
Respondent’s unauthorized practice of law did not involve the active performance
of any legal services , and as such, does not warrant disbarment or the most severe

8

suspension. However, respondent also engaged in additional misconduct, and he
has a prior disciplinary history.
Based on this reasoning, the board recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for two years. The board also recommended that
respondent be assessed with the costs and expenses of this proceeding.
Neither party filed an objection to the disciplinary board’s recommendation.3

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. While we are not bound in any way by the findi ngs 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.
Respondent has stipulated that he engaged in professional misconduct when
he failed to notify his client that he had been suspended from the practice of law,
failed to immediately return an unearned fee and client file after suspension, failed
to comply wi th reinstatement requirements, filed a knowingly false reinstatement
affidavit with this court, and collected attorney’s fees while suspended from the
practice of law. Based upon these stipulations, respondent violated the Rules of
Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges. Therefore, the sole question
presented for our consideration is the appropriate sanction for this misconduct.

3 Although respondent attempted to file an objection, it was untimely under Supreme Court Rule
XIX, § 11(G) and therefore was not considered.

9

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).
Respondent knowingly and intentionally violated duties owed to his clients,
the legal system, and the legal profession. His conduct caused actual harm. The
baseline sanction for this type of misconduct is suspension. Aggravating factors
include a prior disciplinary record, a dishonest or selfish motive, multiple offenses,
vulnerability of the victim, and substantial experience in the practice of law. The
only mitigating factor present is full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board and
a cooperat ive attitude toward the proceedings.
Based upon our review of the record, we cannot say that the imposition of a
two-year suspension from the practice of law is inappropriate. Further, imposing the
recommended sanction would require respondent to file a formal petition for
reinstatement. Accordingly, we will adopt the board’s recommendation and suspend
respondent from the practice of law for two years.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee
and the disciplinary board , and considering the record, it is ordered that Lionel
Burns, Jr. , Louisiana Bar Roll number 25352, be and he hereby is suspended from
the practice of law for two years. Costs and expenses in the matter are assessed
against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal

10

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