Deepwater Reciprocal Sanction Imposed

The Louisiana Supreme Court has ordered reciprocal discipline for federal court sanctions

In the months following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, hundreds of individual and class actions were filed in state and federal courts on behalf of the thousands of victims. Many of those claims were consolidated in the Eastern District of Louisiana Deepwater Horizon multi-district litigation (“MDL”). In 2012, BP reached a settlement with the MDL plaintiffs, which established the Court-Supervised Settlement Program (“CSSP”) to evaluate and award the payment of economic damages to individuals and businesses affected by the oil spill. Respondent was among the attorneys who represented claimants in the CSSP.

In 2013, respondent was accused of funneling $40,000 to a CSSP staff attorney through improper referral payments. The MDL district court appointed Louis Freeh as special master to investigate the alleged misconduct. Respondent made false statements during this investigation. The special master’s report recommended that respondent be prevented from representing CSSP claimants. United States District Judge Carl Barbier, the district court judge overseeing both  the MDL and CSSP, ordered respondent to show cause why he should not adopt the recommendation.

Following an evidentiary hearing and an opportunity to respond in writing, Judge Barbier determined that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and disqualified him from participating further in the CSSP or collecting fees.

Respondent then appealed to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the district court misapplied the Rules of Professional Conduct and that its sanctions were excessive. The court of appeals disagreed, holding that the district court “did not abuse its discretion in finding that [respondent] violated the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct or in fashioning an appropriate sanction.” In re Deepwater Horizon, 824 F.3d 571, 586 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam).

At Judge Barbier’s direction, the special master filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent with the en banc court of the Eastern District of Louisiana. Following a hearing, the en banc court found that respondent clearly violated duties owed to the legal system, the court, and the profession through his violation of Rules 1.5(e) (division of fees between lawyers who are not in the same firm), 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The en banc court suspended respondent from practicing law in the Eastern District of Louisiana for one year (three concurrent one-year suspensions) for violating Rules 1.5(e), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d); for respondent’s violation of Rule 8.4(c), the court ordered a public reprimand.

Respondent again appealed to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the en banc court misapplied the Rules of Professional Conduct and abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sanction. The court of appeals agreed with respondent that the en banc court erred in finding he violated Rules 1.5(e) and 8.4(a); however, the court of appeals found respondent’s conduct did violate Rule 8.4(d)…

With regard to sanction, the court of appeals reversed the en banc court’s order suspending respondent from the practice of law for one year each for violations of Rules 1.5(e) and 8.4(a). The court of appeals remanded the matter to the en banc court for further proceedings, stating that “[o]n remand, the court is free to impose on Andry whatever sanction it sees fit for the 8.4(d) violation, including but not limited to its previous one-year suspension.”

On remand, the en banc court suspended respondent for one year for his violation of Rule 8.4(d). The effective date of the suspension was April 20, 2022.

Reciprocal discipline

In the instant case, the imposition of reciprocal discipline against respondent based upon the federal court’s judgment (a one-year suspension, which has become final upon the denial of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court) is clearly appropriate.

(Mike Frisch)