In Re: Lindsey J. Leavoy

Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 03, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: LINDSEY J. LEAVOY
No. 2024-B-01444
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Office of Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and
Recommendations (Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 03, 2025
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
PDG
JLW
JDH
WJC
JBM
JMG
CRC
06/03/2025 "See News Release 026 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2024-B-1444
IN RE: LINDSEY J. LEAVOY
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Lindsey J. Leavoy, an attorney
licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently on interim suspension for threat
of harm to the public. In re: Leavoy, 24-0991 (La. 8/7/24), 390 So. 3d 763.
FORMAL CHARGES
In July 2015, Cornelius Jackson hired attorney Leslie R. Leavoy, Jr. to handle
a personal injury claim on a contingency fee basis. Mr. Jackson did not sign a written
contingency fee agreement. In June 2016, Leslie Leavoy filed suit on Mr. Jackson’s
behalf.
Leslie Leavoy subsequently associated respondent, who is his brother, as co-
counsel in Mr. Jackson’s matter. Respondent did not work in the same firm as Leslie
Leavoy; nevertheless, Mr. Jackson did not agree in writing to respondent’s
representation, and he was not advised in writing as to the share of the attorney’s fee
that respondent and Leslie Leavoy would each receive.
Respondent met with Mr. Jackson’s health care providers, took a deposition,
and participated in an unsuccessful mediation in 2020, but he failed to file a motion
to set the case for trial. Indeed, little to nothing was done in Mr. Jackson’s case after
the mediation. Respondent suffered a heart attack in June 2022 and underwent

2
surgery the following year. In February 2024, the defendants in Mr. Jackson’s case
filed a motion to dismiss the case on grounds of abandonment. The trial court
granted the motion in March 2024.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In June 2024, 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: Rule s 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client),
1.5(c) (a contingent fee agreement shall be in a writing signed by the client), and
1.5(e) (division of fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm).
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 committee’s consideration.
Hearing Committee Report
After considering the ODC’s deemed admitted submission, the hearing
committee acknowledged that the factual allegations set forth in the formal charges
were deemed admitted. The committee found there was clear and convincing
evidence that:
Despite taking on the responsibility of helping represent
Cornelius Jackson in a personal injury suit, said suit was
abandoned due to Respondent’s failure to timely file a
motion to set the matter for trial; Respondent failed to
communicate with Cornelius Jackson for years; and
Respondent failed to obtain Cornelius Jackson’s informed,

3

written consent to both his representation and fee splitting
with co-counsel.

Based on these facts, the committee determined respondent violated the Rules
of Professional Conduct as charged.
The committee determined respondent knowingly violated duties owed to his
client. Respondent’s conduct caused actual harm to Mr. Jackson, whose case had
value but was dismissed as abandoned. Relying on the ABA’s Standards for
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions , the committee determined the baseline sanction is
suspension.
The committee found the following aggravating factors present: substantial
experience in the practice of law (admitted 1988) and a “complete lack of
cooperation with the ODC in this particular case.” The committee noted the only
mitigating factor present is respondent’s lack of prior discipline.
After further considering the court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the committee recommended that the respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for twelve months, with all but six months deferred, followed by a
one-year period of probation.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the committee’s report
and recommendation. Therefore, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G), the
disciplinary board submitted the committee’s report directly 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
been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re: Banks, 09-1212 (La. 10/2/09),
18 So. 3d 57.

4

In cases in which the lawyer does not answer the formal charges, the factual
allegations of those charges are deemed admitted. Supreme 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 charges 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 factual 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
failed to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, resulting in
abandonment of the matter, failed to communicate with his client, and failed to
obtain his client’s consent to the representation and fee-splitting arrangement.
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).
The record further supports a finding that respondent violated duties owed to
his client. His conduct was knowing and caused harm. The applicable baseline
sanction is suspension. The hearing committee’s assessment of aggravating and
mitigating factors is supported by the record.

5

Under the circumstances, we agree that the appropriate sanction in this matter
is a twelve-month suspension, with all but six months deferred, followed by a one -
year period of probation. Pursuant to the provisions of Supreme Court Rule XIX,
§24(A), this suspension shall be made retroactive to August 7, 2024, the date of
respondent’s interim suspension.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the hearing committee,
and considering the record, it is ordered that Lindsey J. Leavoy, Louisiana Bar Roll
number 19004, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for a period
of twelve months , with all but six months deferred. This suspension shall be
retroactive to August 7, 2024 , the date of respondent ’s interim suspension.
Following the active portion of the suspension, respondent shall be placed on
unsupervised probation for 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 during
the probationary period, may be grounds for making the deferred portion of the
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.