In Re: Cleophus Washington

Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 11, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: CLEOPHUS WASHINGTON
No. 2025-B-01474
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Office of Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Rule to Revoke Probation;
_ _ _ _ _ _
December 11, 2025
Probation revoked and deferred suspension made executory. See per curiam.
JLW
JDH
WJC
JBM
PDG
JMG
CRC
12/11/2025 "See News Release 055 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2025-B-1474
IN RE: CLEOPHUS WASHINGTON
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
PER CURIAM
The instant disciplinary proceeding arises from a motion to revoke probation
filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Cleophus
Washington,1 for his failure to comply with the conditions of probation imposed in
In re: Washington, 24-1367 (La. 12/27/24), 397 So. 3d 842 (“Washington I”).
UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The record in Washington I demonstrated that respondent was arrested on
drug possession charges in 2022. The District Attorney offered respondent a
diversion, which he accepted.
Following an evaluation facilitated by the Judges and Lawyers Assistance
Program (“JLAP”), respondent was admitted to an intensive outpatient treatment
program at Palmetto Addiction Recovery Center . Respondent successfully
completed the program in July 2024 and was discharged with a diagnosis of cannabis
use disorder, moderate, in remission. On August 6, 2024, respondent executed a five-
year JLAP recovery agreement.
Prior to the filing of formal charges against him , respondent and the ODC
submitted a joint petition for consent discipline addressing respondent’s criminal
1 On May 28, 2025, respondent was declared ineligible to practice law for fail ure to comply with
his mandatory continuing legal education requirements. As of September 2, 2025, he is also
ineligible for failure to pay his bar dues and the disciplinary assessment and for failure to file a
trust account disclosure form.

2

conduct. In the petition, the parties proposed that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for one year, fully deferred, subject to a period of probation that
coincides with the term of his JLAP recovery agreement. We accepted the petition
for consent discipline on December 27, 2024. Our order in Washington I provided
that “[a]ny failure of respondent to comply with the terms of the [JLAP] agreement
may be grounds for making the deferred suspension executory, or imposing
additional discipline, as appropriate. ”
On February 14, 2025, respondent executed a probation agreement (effective
February 24, 2025). The agreement states, in pertinent part, that respondent shall:
1. Comply with the terms of the JLAP agreement executed on August 6, 2024;
2. Fulfill the terms of any subsequent agreements he may make with JLAP;
3. Acknowledge and agree that the executive director of JLAP is authorized to
provide the ODC with quarterly reports documenting his compliance with the
agreement;
4. Promptly respond to all requests by and make himself reasonably available
for conferences with the ODC;
5. Timely provide any waivers of confidentiality to the ODC as necessary to
enable the ODC to monitor his compliance with the Rules of Professional
Conduct and the probation agreement;
6. Comply with all bar membership requirements, including maintaining current
knowledge in the law by satisfying all MCLE requirements, timely paying all
Louisiana State Bar Association membership dues and disciplinary board
annual disciplinary fee assessment s, and timely registering his client trust
account information annually; and
7. Acknowledge that any violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct and/or
the probation agreement may result in summary revocation of his probation

3

and making the deferred suspension executory and/or may result in the
imposition of additional discipline as deemed appropriate .

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
On September 25, 2025, the ODC filed the instant motion to revoke probation
and to make the deferred suspension imposed in Washington I executory. The ODC
alleged that respondent failed to comply with his JLAP monitoring agreement, his
probation agreement, and the court’s order in Washington I, as follows:
1. Respondent was discharged from JLAP monitoring on September 10, 2025
and his file was closed due to non -compliance with his JLAP recovery
agreement.
2. Respondent had not submitted to random drug and alcohol screenings since
May 2025 and had not provided self-reports or AA logs to JLAP since April
2025. JLAP had also not received monitor reports.
3. Respondent failed to comply with any of Palmetto’s recommendations,
including that he follow up with his primary care physician, return to Palmetto
for small group and mirroring, and schedule appointments with Palmetto’s
medical director, Michael McCormick, M.D., on a regular basis.
4. JLAP and the ODC made many attempts to contact respondent, but he failed
to respond. When the ODC finally reached respondent by phone on September
3, 2025, he stated that he was unwilling to complete the required conditions
of probation.
Accordingly, the ODC prayed for revocation of respondent’s probation and
the imposition of the previously deferred one-year suspension, or, alternatively, the
imposition of additional discipline, as appropriate. Respondent failed to file an
answer to the ODC’s request to revoke probation.

4

Hearing on Revocation of Probation
This matter proceeded to a hearing before a hearing committee on November
5, 2025. Respondent did not appear at the hearing. No testimony was taken, but the
ODC introduced documentary evidence into the record .

Hearing Committee Recommendation
On November 20, 2025, the hearing committee filed its report in this court,
recommending the ODC’s motion to revoke probation be granted . The committee
made findings of fact consistent with the underlying facts set forth above, and found
the ODC presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that respondent violated the
court’s order in Washington I and his probation agreement.
Accordingly, the committee recommended that respondent’s probation be
revoked and that the deferred one-year suspension imposed in Washington I be made
executory. The committee also recommended that respondent not be allowed to
apply for reinstatement until he has been re-evaluated by a JLAP-approved facility
and complied with JLAP recommendations . The committee further recommended
that he be assessed with all costs and expenses of these proceedings.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed any response to the hearing committee’s
recommendation.

DISCUSSION
A review of the record supports a finding that respondent has not complied
with the requirements set forth in the probation agreement he executed on February
14, 2025. To protect the public, we believe it is necessary to revoke respondent’s
probation and i mpose the previously deferred suspension.
Accordingly, we will accept the hearing committee’s recommendation and
grant the motion to revoke respondent’s probation, making the one-year suspension

5

imposed in Washington I immediately executory. Before seeking reinstatement,
respondent shall provide the court with a letter from the Executive Director of JLAP
confirming that he has been re-evaluated by a JLAP -approved facility and has
complied with the recommendations of JLAP.

DECREE
For the reasons assigned, respondent ’s probation is revoked and the
previously deferred one-year suspension imposed in In re: Washington , 24-1367
(La. 12/27/24), 397 So. 3d 842, is hereby made immediately executory. Before being
reinstated pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 23, in addition to complying with
all other requirements set forth in § 23, respondent shall provide the court with a
letter from the Executive Director of the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program
confirming that he has been re-evaluated by a JLAP -approved facility and has
complied with the recommendations of JLAP. All costs and expenses in the matter
are assessed against respondent, Cleophus Washington, Louisiana Bar Roll number
38491 , 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.