“Courts enjoy broad discretion to determine who may practice before them and to regulate the conduct of those who do.”
How later courts described this case
- “Courts enjoy broad discretion to determine who may practice before them and to regulate the conduct of those who do.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHAWN COOPER CIVIL ACTION NO.
VERSUS 19-528-JWD-EWD
TREVOR WILSON, ET AL.
ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion for Sanction (“Motion”),! filed by Plaintiff Shawn Cooper,
(“Cooper”), who is now representing himself. In the Motion, Cooper complains of several
actions/inactions by his former attorney, Jessica Vasquez (““Vasquez”),” during the course of her
representation of Cooper in these proceedings, to-wit: she made false statements, to the effect that
the Court required the parties to participate in a second settlement conference; she failed to inform
Cooper of the September 21, 2022 status conference,’ the Consent Motion to Continue Trial filed
by Defendants,+ and the agreement of the parties to participate in the second settlement
conference; she violated a number of Rules of Professional Conduct, including failure to
communicate with the client and engaging in misconduct; and she revealed confidential
information to Defendants, i.e., Cooper’s “bottom line” number for settlement.° As a result of
these grievances, Plaintiff requests that the Court “institute sanctions or any actions against
Attorney Vasquez that the Court deems appropriate to address these actions of gross
misconduct.’””®
By Local Civil Rule 83(b)(6), this Court has adopted the Louisiana Rules of Professional
Conduct of the Louisiana State Bar Association (the “Rules”), which are provisions that govern
Doc. 56.
; Vasquez was permitted to withdraw after the Court held a video hearing with Vasquez and Cooper. R. Doe. 34.
Doe. 26
SR. Doe. 56.
6 R. Doc. 56, pp. 5-6.
attorney conduct. “It is beyond dispute that ‘a federal court has the power to control admission to
its bar and to discipline attorneys who appear before it.’”7 While this power is “incidental to all
Courts,” it is nevertheless “one which ought to be exercised with great caution.”8 When
appropriate, this Court has considered the imposition of sanctions against attorneys who, in its
view, have violated their Rule-based obligations to the Court.9 However, the structure of the Local
Rules contemplates that attorney discipline can be initiated by a judge of this Court, but does not
appear to contemplate a procedure whereby a litigant or, as in this case, a formerly represented
party, initiates the proceeding in this Court.10 The sanctions sought in the instant Motion are of the
latter nature. The undersigned has not witnessed any conduct by Vasquez potentially violative of
her obligations to the Court under the Rules. Rather, Cooper has raised complaints against Vasquez
arising out of his attorney-client relationship with her.11 This type of complaint, which is asserted
against a non-party, and which is unrelated to the factual circumstances of this proceeding
(involving a motor vehicle accident), is more properly brought to the Louisiana Attorney
Disciplinary Board. That is the body authorized to evaluate attorney complaints raised by litigants
against attorneys licensed in the State of Louisiana and to take actions in response to such
complaints, as appropriate.12
7 In re Marshall, No. 3:15-MC-88-JWD, 2016 WL 81484, at *6 (M.D. La. Jan. 7, 2016), citing Chambers v. NASCO,
Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) and United States v. Nolen, 472 F.3d 362, 371 (5th Cir. 2006) (“Courts enjoy broad
discretion to determine who may practice before them and to regulate the conduct of those who do.”).
8 Marshall, 2016 WL 81484, at *6, citing Ex parte Burr, 22 U.S. 529, 531 (1824).
9 See, e.g., Marshall, 2016 WL 81484.
10 See Local Civil Rule 83(b)(12) which provides the procedure for a judge to initiate disciplinary proceedings against
an attorney.
11 Cooper is cautioned that communications between clients and their legal counsel that are otherwise protected by
attorney-client privilege may become subject to disclosure when the client waives the privilege and discloses the
communications.
12 See, e.g., Nortrick v. Harried, No. 5:15-CV-2790, 2016 WL 3128726, at *2 (W.D. La. Jan. 11, 2016), report and
recommendation adopted sub nom. Van Nortrick v. Harried, No. 5:15-CV-2790, 2016 WL 3129270 (W.D. La. June
1, 2016) (dismissing claim against court-appointed counsel based on allegation she violated attorney-client privilege,
the court held: “Plaintiff is a member of the Louisiana Bar, subject to the disciplinary rules established by the Supreme
Court. Under Louisiana law, complaints against attorneys must be filed with the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary
Board, the agency established by the Louisiana Supreme Court ‘... to administer the lawyer discipline and disability
system.’ See Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 2(A); see also § 11 which authorizes disciplinary counsel to screen and
investigate complaints of attorney misconduct. Ultimately, the decision to disbar, suspend, admonish, or otherwise
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Motion for Sanction (“Motion”),13 filed by Plaintiff Shawn Cooper,
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of this Order
to Plaintiff Shawn Cooper via certified mail, return receipt requested, at his address stated in the
Motion, i.e., 2448 Morningbrook Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70816.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on May 24, 2022.
S
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
sanction a member of the Louisiana Bar is committed to the authority of the Louisiana Supreme Court. See Rule XIX,