In Re: Ronald Sidney Haley, Jr.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
September 10, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: RONALD SIDNEY HALEY, JR.
No. 2025-B-00478
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
September 10, 2025
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., dissents and would reject the proposed discipline as too harsh.
McCallum, J., dissents and would reject the proposed discipline as too lenient.
Cole, J., dissents and would reject the proposed discipline as too lenient.
JLW
WJC
PDG
JMG
09/10/2025 "See News Release 040 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2025-B-0478
IN RE: RONALD SIDNEY HALEY, JR.
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Ronald S. Haley, Jr., an attorney
licensed to practice law in Louisiana but is currently on interim suspension for threat
of harm to the public. In re: Haley, 25-0337 (La. 4/2/25), 404 So. 3d 634.
PRIOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY
Before we address the instant matter, we find it helpful to review respondent’s
prior disciplinary history. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in
Louisiana in 2007.
In 2016, this court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and
suspended respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, fully
deferred, subject to his compliance with a five -year recovery agreement with the
Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program. In re: Haley, 15-2285 (La. 2/19/16), 184
So. 3d 684 (“Haley I”). The misconduct at issue in Haley I involved respondent’s
2008 and 2011 arrests for driving while intoxicated.
In 2021, the court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline and
suspended respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day, with all but
six months deferred, subject to his successful competition of Louisiana State Bar

2

Association’s Ethics School. In re: Haley, 21-1466 (La. 12/7/21), 328 So. 3d 418
(“Haley II”). The misconduct at issue in Haley II involved respondent’s neglect of
a legal matter, failure to communicate with a client, inappropriate attempt to settle a
malpractice claim with a client, and failure to return a client’s file upon request.
Against this backdrop, we now turn to consideration of the misconduct at issue
in the instant proceeding.

FORMAL CHARGES
The Beasley matter
Respondent represented Timothy Terrell Beasley in connection with drug
offenses after 51 pounds of cocaine were found in Mr. Beasley’s car.1 Respondent
filed a motion to supress but was unsuccessful. Following the hearing, Mr. Beasley
confronted respondent about his failure to submit a dash cam video which Mr.
Beasley believed would show no probable cause for the initial traffic stop.
Respondent advised Mr. Beasley that he would be filing a writ with the appellate
court where the video would be reviewed.
Mr. Beasley called the district and appellate courts and learned no writ had
been filed. Mr. Beasley again confronted respondent, who advised him that he had
filed a motion for extension. Mr. Beasley terminated the respondent’s representation
and hired new counsel.
The ODC alleges that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with

1 Initially, Mr. Beasley’s parents hired respondent to file a bond reduction for $2,500.00. That
motion was successful, and Mr. Beasley was able to afford to bail out of jail. Respondent told Mr.
Beasley he would charge him $15,000.00 to represent him in the matter, less the $2,500.00 paid
for the bond reduction. To date, Mr. Beasley has paid respondent only $10,000.00 for the
representation.

3

a client), 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), and 8.4(c)
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).

The Scott matter
Tevin Scott was incarcerated and was charged with battery of a corrections
officer.2 Mr. Scott hired respondent to represent him as to any potential future civil
matter related to the alleged beating as well as to defend him against all pending
criminal charges.3 Mr. Scott’s mother met with respondent and paid a $6,000.00 flat
fee for respondent’s representation.
Respondent advised Mr. Scott that if he accepted a plea agreement, he would
be immediately released from jail and begin probation. 4 Thereafter, Mr. Scott
pleaded to the pending charges and was released from jail.
Mr. Scott later learned that all the charges were not removed from his criminal
record as promised by respondent. Respondent again assured Mr. Scott that all the
charges should have been removed from his criminal record.
In December 2022, prior to resolving Mr. Scott’s matters, respondent was
suspended from the practice of law in Haley II. Respondent arranged for two other
attorneys to handle the matters. These attorneys filed a motion for reconsideration
of sentence, which was granted. Mr. Scott was resentenced and again placed on
probation with conditions. It was after this resentencing that Mr. Scott learned he

2 According to Mr. Scott, the corrections officer actually beat him.

3 At the time, Mr. Scott had several pending charges: battery of a corrections officer, illegal use
of a weapon, stalking, terrorizing, entering into or remaining after forbidden, and two charges of
battery of a dating partner.

4 In the case of certain offenses, the court may suspend the sentence subject to a probationary
period which length is discretionary. If the court finds at the conclusion of the probationary
period that the probation of the defendant has been satisfactory, the court may set aside the
conviction and dismiss the prosecution. The dismissal has the same effect as acquittal, except
the conviction may be considered as a prior offense in a later criminal prosecution. See La. Code
Cr. P. art. 893 and 894.

4

would have to file expungement paperwork to have the charges cleared from his
record.
At his resentencing, the trial court advised Mr. Scott that if he fulfilled his
probation conditions early, he could have his attorneys request an earlier court date.
Mr. Scott completed his probation conditions early and attempted to contact
respondent and his other two attorneys, to no avail. Consequently, Mr. Scott had to
hire new counsel to complete the matters for $4,500.00.
The ODC alleges that respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 8.1(a) (a lawyer shall not
knowingly make a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary
investigation), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice).
The Edwards matter
Mieyoshi Edwards retained respondent to represent him in criminal
proceedings in Baton Rouge. Because of Mr. Edwards’ incarceration, his father,
Mieyoshi Poole, was the primary point of contact for the representation. Mr. Poole
met with respondent on thr ee separate occasions (December 28, 2021; February 8,
2022; and March 14, 2022) to discuss legal strategy for Mr. Edwards’ case. At the
February meeting, respondent agreed to represent Mr. Edwards on additional
pending criminal charges in St. Tammany Pari sh for the payment of $10,000.00.
During this time, respondent was suspended from the practice of law between
December 7, 2021 through June 7, 2022. Respondent did not inform Mr. Edwards
or Mr. Poole that he was suspended at the time of the meetings.
The ODC alleges Rules 3.4(c) (knowing disobedience of an obligation under
the rules of the tribunal), 5.5(a) (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law),
8.1(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).

5

The Clayton Matter
In August 2022, the ODC learned that respondent, during a period in which
he was suspended from the practice of law, represented Marcus Clayton in the 19th
Judicial District Court. Respondent did not inform Mr. Clayton of his suspension.
Text messages produced to the court through Mr. Clayton’s subsequent counsel in a
motion to withdraw his guilty plea and set aside sentence, reveal respondent advised
Mr. Clayton on his legal matter during his period of suspension. The text messages
further reveal that in February 2022, during respondent’s suspension, Mr. Clayton
agreed to pay for new tires and rims on respondent’s vehicle in exchange for a partial
payment of respondent’s legal fees. The total price for the tires and rims to be
installed was $3,168.00, which respondent accepted from Mr. Clayton during his
period of suspension.
The ODC alleges Rules 3.4(c), 5.5(a), 8.1(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).

Hearing Committee Report5
After a hearing, the hearing committee found respondent violated the Rules
of Professional Conduct as charged in the Beasley and Scott matters. The committee
stated:
In both instances, the Respondent’s clients are persons
charged with crimes who are not sophisticated in criminal
legal matters and who are dependent on him for sound
legal representation. Whether a client is sophisticated or
not sophisticated they should always be able to depend on
his or her attorney for sound legal advice - - that is why
they hire an attorney. The clients’ position is a common
position. They have been charged with crimes and want
to eliminate or minimize the criminal charges.

On the other hand, the Respondent was well prepared to
accept a fee for representation, gave assurances to his
clients that he would protect them and take care of them,
but in reality, gave them short shrift. The Respondent was
not believable in his testimony. His interest was in the fee

5 The Beasley and Scott matters were heard by a separate hearing committee from the Edwards
and Clayton matters. We will address the findings of the committees together.

6

for the lawyer, which once collected, appeared to end any
serious and committed representation of his clients.

The committee determined respondent violated duties owed to his clients, the
public, and the legal profession. Respondent acted negligently, intentionally, and
knowingly. It was the committee’s opinion that “[r]espondent’s activities have
resulted in harm to the public and the legal profession.” The baseline sanction is
suspension. It found the aggravating factor of prior discipline and determined there
were no mitigating factors. The committee recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day in the Beasley and Scott
matters.
In the Edwards and Clayton matters, the hearing committee found the ODC
carried its burden of proving one instance of practicing law while suspended in
violation of Rules 5.5(a) and 8.4(a). The committee failed to find clear and
convincing evidence of the other alleged rule violations.
The committee determined that the aggravating factor of a prior disciplinary
record is present. In mitigation, it found absence of a dishonest or selfish motive and
cooperative attitude toward the proceedings. After further considering the court’s
prior jurisprudence addressing similar misconduct, the committee recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months for this conduct in
the Edwards and Clayton matters.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation6
The board accepted most of the committee’s findings. However, in the
Beasley and Scott matters, the board found no clear and convincing evidence that
respondent violated Rules 8.1(a), and 8.4(c) pertaining to making false statements to
his clients. In particular, the board reasoned “[w]hile there may have been

6 Before being considered by the disciplinary board, all charges against respondent were
consolidated.

7

insufficient communication and some misunderstandings between Respondent and
his clients in both matters in connection with their discussion regarding pleas offers
and agreements, the evidence does not support that Respondent intentionally
engaged in disho nesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentations during these
discussions.”
The board found respondent’s conduct was negligent at times and, in some
instances, may have been knowing. His actions caused both actual and potential
harm to his clients. The board determined that the following aggravating factors are
present: a prior disciplinary record, pattern of misconduct, and substantial
experience in the practice of law. It found that no mitigating factors are present. As
an appropriate sanction, the board concluded that a one year and one day suspension
is reasonable for respondent’s misconduct for all consolidated matters.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed a timely objection in this court to the
disciplinary board’s recommendation. However, after the expiration of the time for
filing objections under Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G)(1), respondent sought to
file a “late” objection. On May 13, 2025, we issued an order rejecting respondent’s
objection as untimely and, therefore, procedurally improper but permitting the filing
of briefs, without oral argument. Respondent and the ODC both filed briefs in
response to the court’s order.

DISCUSSION
The hearing committee made a finding of fact that respondent made
assurances to his clients and failed to perform any work on their behalf. This finding
is supported by the record. Notably, respondent’s actions in this regard are similar
to the conduct at issue in Haley II, in which this court suspended him for one year
and one day with all but six months deferred.

8

In addition to the charges of neglect of client matters, respondent also engaged
in unauthorized practice of law during the period he was suspended in Haley II.
However, as the board pointed out, respondent was not actively involved in the
performance of legal services (such as drafting pleadings, filing pleadings or
appearing in court) during this time. While the unauthorized practice of law can be
very serious misconduct which might warrant permanent disbarment, the court
typically imposes lesser sanctions when the respondent’s activities do not directly
constitute the practice of law. See, e.g., In re: Dowell, 09-1419 (La. 12/18/09), 24
So.3d 203 (lawyer suspended from the practice of law for one year when he failed
to send notices to clients after disbarment, acted as a notary, and failed to cooperate
with the ODC).
Aggravating factors include a prior disciplinary record, pattern of misconduct,
and substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 2007). The record
supports the disciplinary board’s finding that no mitigating factors are present.
Considering the record as a whole, we conclude a suspension of one year and
one day, which will necessitate a formal application for reinstatement, is appropriate
under the facts.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee
and the disciplinary board , and considering the record, it is ordered that Ronald
Sidney Haley, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 30900, be and he hereby is suspended
from the practice of law for one year and one day. 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.