In Re: Stacey L. Thomas

Supreme Court of Louisiana
September 16, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: STACEY L. THOMAS
No. 2025-B-00926
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Findings and Recommendations
(Formal Charges);
_ _ _ _ _ _
September 16, 2025
Suspension imposed. See per curiam.
JLW
JDH
WJC
JBM
PDG
JMG
CRC
09/16/2025 "See News Release 041 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2025-B-0926
IN RE: STACEY L. THOMAS
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Stacey L. Thomas, an attorney
licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently suspended from the practice of
law.
PRIOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY
Before we address the current charges, we find it helpful to review
respondent’s prior disciplinary history. Respondent was admitted to the practice of
law in Louisiana in 2002.
In 2012, this court accepted a joint petition for consent discipline in which
respondent stipulated she mishandled a real estate closing. For this misconduct, she
was suspended from the practice of law for six months, fully deferred, subject to her
successful completion of a two -year period of unsupervised probation. In re:
Thomas, 12-1129 (La. 6/22/12), 90 So. 3d 1045.
In 2014, this court imposed reciprocal discipline on respondent for practicing
law while ineligible, failing to diligently handle a matter, failing to communicate
with a client, and failing to safekeep the property of clients or third parties while in
Alabama. For that misconduct, respondent was suspended from the practice of law
for ninety -one days, retroactive to her February 13, 2012 interim suspension
imposed in Alabama. In re: Thomas, 13-2685 (La. 2/7/14), 132 So. 3d 1258.

2

Respondent has not filed the necessary affidavits and certifications with this
court to be reinstated to the practice of law in Louisiana, and thus, remains suspended
from the practice of law.
Against this backdrop, we now turn to consideration of the instant misconduct.

FORMAL CHARGES
In October 2023, Bruce Johnson filed a complaint against respondent with the
ODC alleging that he retained respondent to handle some property claim matters,
but after paying respondent $1,500.00, respondent failed to communicate at all with
Mr. Johnson or move the matter forward.
The ODC sent a copy of the complaint and request for a reply to respondent’s
primary and preferred registered addresses with the Louisiana State Bar Association
(“LSBA”); however, that correspondence was returned as unable to forward. The
ODC sent respondent an email to her registered email address, but that email was
rejected, citing that the mailbox was “disabled.”
The ODC sent a copy of the complaint and request for reply to respondent’s
secondary registered address, which respondent received in December 2023.
Respondent failed to respond by the deadline provided therein.
In May 2024, the ODC was able to initiate a phone call with respondent who
admitted to failing to respond to the complaint. Respondent was provided an
extension to respond by June 6, 2024; however, respondent failed to timely respond
until July 2, 2024. The ODC subsequently requested certain documents in support
of respondent’s reply. Respondent never provided those documents despite
receiving multiple extensions of time to do so. Further, in that May 2024 phone call,
respondent admitted to the ODC that her LSBA registered contact information was
not accurate. Respondent assured the ODC that she would promptly correct that
information. As of June 2025, respondent has yet to update her contact information.

3

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
In January 2025, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging
that her conduct as set forth above violated the following provisions of the Rules of
Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1(c) (a lawyer is required to comply with all of the
requirements of the Supreme Court’s rules regarding annual registration, including
timely notification of changes of addres s) and 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the
ODC in its investigation).
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. Based on those facts, the committee determined respondent
violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.
The committee determined respondent violated duties owed to the legal
system and the legal profession. She acted knowingly, if not intentionally, causing
actual harm to the disciplinary system by failing to cooperate with the investigation
and failing to keep her contact information current, making it “impossible to
investigate and resolve this complaint made by a member of the public.” Relying
on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined
the baseline sanction is suspension.

4

The committee found the following aggravating factors present: a prior
disciplinary record, dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple
offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary agency, refusal to acknowledge
wrongful nature of conduct, and substantial experience in the practice of law
(admitted 2002). The committee found no mitigating factors present.
After further considering the court’s prior jurisprudence addressing similar
misconduct, the committee recommended respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for one year and one day. The committee also recommended that
she be assessed with the costs and expenses of this proceeding.
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.
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). The record in this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that
respondent failed to comply with annual registration requirements and failed to
cooperate with the ODC. This conduct amounts to a violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct as charged.
The ODC gave respondent multiple extensions and opportunities to respond
to Mr. Johnson’s complaint and produce relevant documents, but she failed to do so,

5

thereby impairing the ODC’s ability to investigate the complaint. Considering
respondents’ prior disciplinary history and the numerous aggravating factors present,
we find the committee’s recommendation of a one year and one day suspension from
the practice of law is appropriate. See In re: Gray, 17-1929 (La. 1/29/18), 234 So.
3d 65 (attorney who was previously suspended for two years was suspended for one
year based on failure to cooperate with the ODC’s investigation of a new complaint
which arose during her original suspension).
Accordingly, we will suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year
and one day.

DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the hearing committee,
and considering the record, it is ordered that Stacey L. Thomas, Louisiana Bar Roll
number 27892, be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. 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.