In re Sonnier
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Jmg, Jlw, Jdh, Jbm, Pdg, Crc, Whb (per curiam)
NO. 2026-B-0683
IN RE: NED FRANKLIN PIERCE SONNIER, SR.
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC“) against respondent, Ned Franklin Pierce Sonnier, Sr., a disbarred attorney.
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 2017.
On April 8, 2022, we placed respondent on interim suspension for threat of harm to the public based upon concerns that he had abandoned his law practice. On October 25, 2024, we disbarred respondent, retroactive to the date of his interim suspension. In re: Sonnier, 24-0520 (La. 10/25/24), 395 So. 3d 850 (”Sonnier I“). The misconduct at issue in Sonnier I occurred in 2021 and 2022.
Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the instant misconduct.
FORMAL CHARGES
In October 2020, Rebecca and Todd Delcambre hired respondent to represent them in a claim for flood damage to their home caused by an improperly installed air conditioner. The Delcambres also hired respondent to file suit against the contractors who worked on the home. They paid respondent a $5,000 advance
Thereafter, respondent filed two lawsuits on behalf of the Delcambres but subsequently ceased communication with them and stopped responding to their calls and emails. In March 2022, the Delcambres terminated respondent‘s representation and requested a copy of their current invoice as well as a return of their file materials. Respondent failed to respond to their request.
The case record for Rebecca & Todd Delcambre v. Energy Shield Insulators, LLC, et al., C-204031B, on the docket of the 27th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Landry, reflects that a petition for damages was filed on November 4, 2020. Thereafter, respondent neglected the case by failing to respond to opposing counsel‘s requests for available times and dates for depositions, failing to participate in a Rule 10.1 conference, and failing to appear for a hearing on a motion to compel.
The case record for Rebecca & Todd Delcambre v. Tim‘s Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Inc., et al., C-213163B, on the docket of the 27th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Landry, reflects that a petition was filed on August 25, 2021. Thereafter, respondent abandoned the case by failing to respond to discovery requests and failing to participate in a Rule 10.1 conference.
In November 2024, the Delcambres filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent. Respondent did not respond to the complaint.1
In November 2025, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging that his conduct as set forth above violated Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.5(f)(5) (failure to refund an unearned fee), 1.16(c) (a lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the representation), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Respondent failed to file an answer to 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 determined that the factual allegations in the formal charges have been established by the evidence submitted. Additionally, the committee made a finding that respondent engaged in the practice of law after the commencement of his interim suspension, noting that he failed to notify his clients of his interim suspension and subsequent disbarment in Sonnier I or withdraw from their ongoing matters pending in the 27th JDC. Based upon these facts, the committee determined that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.2
The committee determined that the following aggravating factors are present: a prior disciplinary record, a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, vulnerability of the victims, and indifference to making restitution. The committee specifically noted that respondent “committed multiple, distinct rule violations, spanning from duties of diligence, communication, proper withdrawal, safekeeping of client property, and cooperation with disciplinary authorities.”
The committee determined that no mitigating factors are present, noting that no mitigating evidence was presented. The committee added that while respondent has limited experience in the practice of law (admitted 2017), any marginal weight of that inexperience is entirely offset by the willfulness and extended duration of the misconduct, the financial harm caused to his clients, as well as his total failure to engage with the disciplinary process.
Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the committee concluded that the application of the approach set forth in Louisiana State Bar Ass‘n v. Chatelain, 573 So. 2d 470 (La. 1991), is warranted. In Chatelain, the court held:
Since the attorney-respondent cannot control the timing of the institution of disciplinary proceedings, it is generally inappropriate to disbar a previously disbarred attorney an
additional time when the violations at issue occurred before or concurrently with the violations which resulted in the initial disbarment. When a second disciplinary proceeding against an attorney involves misconduct which occurred during the same time period as the first proceeding, the overall discipline to be imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before the court simultaneously.
Respondent‘s current misconduct occurred during the time period as his misconduct in Sonnier I. Nevertheless, the committee determined that the combined misconduct would have resulted in no greater sanction than that imposed in Sonnier I.
Based upon the above findings, the committee recommended that respondent be adjudged guilty of additional rule violations to be considered if and when he seeks readmission to the practice of law, and that his readmission be conditioned upon his providing a full accounting and restitution to his former clients. The committee also recommended that he be assessed with the costs and expenses of this proceeding.
Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the committee‘s report or 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.
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
The record of this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with his clients, failed to return their fees and files, failed to properly withdraw from a representation, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and failed to respond to the disciplinary complaint. Based upon these facts, respondent has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.3
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).
Respondent knowingly violated duties owed to his clients the legal system, and the legal profession, causing substantial actual harm to his clients and harm to the disciplinary system. The aggravating factors found by the committee are supported by the record, and no mitigating factors are present.
In Sonnier I, we disbarred respondent for abandoning his law practice, resulting in the neglect of client matters, failing to communicate with clients, failing to return unearned fees or client files, and failing to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. The addition of his current misconduct would have still resulted in an order of disbarment in Sonnier I.
Accordingly, we will adopt the hearing committee‘s recommendation and adjudge respondent guilty of additional rule violations to be considered if and when he seeks readmission to the practice of law. We will further order that respondent‘s readmission be conditioned upon his providing a full accounting and restitution to his former clients.
DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee, and considering the record, it is ordered that Ned Franklin Pierce Sonnier, Sr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 37880, be and he hereby is adjudged guilty of additional rule violations warranting discipline, which shall be considered in the event he seeks readmission after becoming eligible to do so. We further order that his readmission shall be conditioned upon respondent providing a full accounting and restitution to Rebecca and Todd Delcambre. 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.
Notes
[respondent] clearly negligently and maliciously abandoned his law practice on or about December 31, 2021, leaving all client files, client files with pending hearings, unfiled pleadings, etc. in a way in which it was difficult to effectively protect the interests of his former clients. His mail at his law office, including numerous certified mail notices had accumulated from the time he left. ...