The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ANNE W. BREAUD CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-1865
LATOYA W. CANTRELL, et al. SECTION: “G”(1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Anne W. Breaud’s (“Breaud”) Motion to Determine Conflict-
Free Representation.1 The Motion arises out of Defendants LaToya W. Cantrell (“Cantrell”),
Clifton M. Davis II (“Davis”), and the City of New Orleans’ concurrent representation by the New
Orleans City Attorney’s Office.2 Defendants oppose the motion.3 Having considered the motion,
the memoranda in support and in opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court denies
the motion. At this stage of the litigation, Breaud has not shown that Defendants are directly
adverse to each other or that there is a significant risk that the representation of one defendant will
materially limit the lawyers’ responsibilities to another defendant. However, Breaud has shown
that a conflict of interest could arise in the future. A disqualification motion may be raised again,
if necessary, after the stay of this litigation is lifted.
I. Background
On Sunday, April 7, 2024, Breaud observed Cantrell, the Mayor of the City of New
Orleans, “appearing to be enjoying a meal and a bottle of wine” with NOPD Officer Vappie on the
1 Rec. Doc. 68.
2 Id. at 2.
3 Rec. Doc. 73.
1
balcony of Tableau Restaurant.4 Breaud claims she captured two photographs of Cantrell and
Vappie on the balcony.5 After taking these pictures, Breaud asserts she forwarded them to Raphael
Goyeneche, the President of the Metropolitan Crime Commission (the “Commission”).6
Thereafter, Breaud alleges the Commission reported the incident and provided the photographs to
Deputy Chief Keith Sanchez of the NOPD’s Public Integrity Bureau, requesting an investigation
of Vappie’s conduct with his protectee, Cantrell.7 Breaud states that at some point shortly after the
Commission’s report to the NOPD Public Integrity Bureau, which occurred on April 12, 2024,
various media outlets published the photographs Breaud captured of Cantrell and Vappie.8
Breaud asserts Cantrell filed a police report against Breaud on May 9, 2024, with Cantrell
claiming she was being “harassed” and “followed” by Breaud, as well as claims that Cantrell felt
“unsafe” because of Breaud.9 As a result of the information Cantrell provided to the NOPD, Breaud
claims her personal information was accessed, obtained, and provided to Cantrell by certain
Defendants somewhere between May 9, 2024 and May 10, 2024.10
Cantrell then filed a Petition for Protection from Stalking or Sexual Assault (the “Petition
for Protection”) against Breaud in state court, which Breaud claims contained false and defamatory
statements.11 The state court issued a Temporary Restraining Order against Breaud, but ultimately
4 Rec. Doc. 45 at 6–7.
5 Id. at 7.
6 Id. at 8.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 11–12.
10 Id. at 14.
11 Id. at 16–17.
2
dismissed Cantrell’s Petition for Protection.12
On July 26, 2024, Breaud filed a Complaint in this Court against Defendants Latoya W.
Cantrell, the City of New Orleans, the New Orleans Police Department, Clifton Davis II, Victor
Gant, Leslie D. Guzman, Ryan St. Martin, and John/Jane Does Numbers 1-5 for alleged “violation
of her civil rights, the violation of federal law by individuals acting under color of law, and
violations of state law, including defamation, abuse of process, abuse of right, intentional infliction
of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, general tort liability and vicarious liability…”13
On September 10, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to stay in light of alleged open criminal
and administrative investigations into certain named Defendants.14 On October 16, 2024, the Court
denied the motion because the fact or scope of an imminent criminal proceeding was merely
speculative and there is a strong interest in the resolution of the case.15
On December 12, 2024, the Court granted an unopposed motion to dismiss all claims
pending against the New Orleans Police Department.16 On January 14, 2024, Defendants Cantrell,
the City of New Orleans, Davis, Gant, Guzman, and St. Martin filed a first Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Rule 12(c) and for Qualified Immunity.17 On March 27, 2025, this Court granted
Breaud leave to file an Amended Complaint.18 The Amended Complaint withdrew all allegations
12 Id. at 4, 20.
13 Rec. Doc. 1 at 1.
14 Rec. Doc. 10.
15 Rec. Doc. 13.
16 Rec. Doc. 21.
17 Rec. Doc. 26.
18 Rec. Doc. 44.
3
against Gant, Guzman, and St. Martin.19 Therefore, the Defendants named in the Amended
Complaint were Cantrell, the City of New Orleans, and Davis (collectively referred to hereafter as
“Defendants”).20
On April 10, 2025, Defendants filed a second Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(c)
and for Qualified Immunity.21 On July 2, 2025, the Court denied the motion and granted Breaud
leave to amend the Complaint to address pleading deficiencies identified in the Order.22 Breaud
filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 16, 2025.23 On July 30, 2025, Defendants filed a
renewed Motion to Dismiss.24
On August 15, 2025, Cantrell was indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern District of
Louisiana through a Superseding Indictment filed in the matter of United States v. Jeffrey Paul
Vappie II and LaToya Cantrell, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
Case No. 24-CR-165. The Superseding Indictment charges Cantrell with one count of conspiracy
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, twelve counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, one
count of conspiracy to obstruct justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k), one count of making a
false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), one count of obstruction of justice in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1), and two counts of making a false declaration before a grand
19 Rec. Doc. 45.
20 Id.
21 Rec. Doc. 47.
22 Rec. Doc. 54.
23 Rec. Doc. 55.
24 Rec. Doc. 60.
4
jury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623.25
On August 18, 2025, Defendants filed a Second Motion to Stay the Proceedings.26 Breaud
did not oppose the motion to stay. She indicated in another filing that she agrees the circumstances
have significantly changed since the First Motion to Stay Proceedings was denied by the Court in
October 2024, and she agrees a stay is appropriate.27
On August 30, 2025, Breaud filed the instant Motion to Determine Conflict-Free
Representation.28 The Court expedited the submission date so that the motion could be decided
with the Second Motion to Stay.29 On September 3, 2025, Defendants filed an opposition to the
motion.30
II. Parties’ Arguments
A. Breaud’s Arguments in Support of the Motion
Breaud asserts that the City Attorney’s Office’s representation of Defendants creates an
actual concurrent conflict of interest under Louisiana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7.31 Breaud
contends that representation of Cantrell and Davis is directly adverse to representation of the City
under Rule 1.7(a)(1).32 Alternatively, Breaud argues that the concurrent representation violates
Rule 1.7(a)(2) because there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will
25 Rec. Doc. 63-3.
26 Rec. Doc. 63.
27 Rec. Doc. 70 at 4.
28 Rec. Doc. 68.
29 Rec. Doc. 69.
30 Rec. Doc. 73.
31 Rec. Doc. 68-1 at 7.
32 Id. at 8.
5
be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client.33 Breaud asserts that the
conflict of interest is not consentable because the City would have a claim against Cantrell and
Davis for their conduct or a claim for indemnification for any award that Breaud might receive.34
Breaud contends that disqualification is warranted because this representation arrangement
violates the public interest, perpetuates an appearance of impropriety in general, creates substantial
risk that a specific impropriety will occur, and the likelihood of public suspicion from the
appearance of impropriety outweighs any social interest served by the representation.35
Accordingly, Breaud argues that the City Attorney’s Office should be precluded from continuing
to represent Cantrell and Davis and should solely represent the City of New Orleans.36
B. Defendants’ Arguments in Opposition to the Motion
Defendants oppose the motion.37 Defendants contend that Breaud does not have legal
standing to move to disqualify opposing counsel, as there is no “manifest and glaring” or “open
and obvious” conflict.38 Defendants contend there is no directly adverse representation under Rule
1.7(a)(1) because Defendants’ counsel does not represent any of the defendants in one matter
against any of the other defendants in some other matter.39 Defendants also contend that Plaintiff
has failed to establish a conflict of interest under Rule 1.7(a)(2) because the City’s position is not
33 Id.
34 Id. at 10.
35 Id. at 7, 12–16.
36 Id. at 16.
37 Rec. Doc. 73.
38 Id. at 5.
39 Id.
6
adverse to the other defendants and there is not a significant risk that the representation of one
defendant would be materially limited by obligations to the other defendants.40
III. Legal Standard
Disqualification motions are governed by “state and national ethical standards adopted by
the court.”41 “The local rules promulgated by the local court itself are the most immediate source
of guidance for a district court.”42 However, because “[m]otions to disqualify are substantive
motions,” they are decided under federal law.43 Thus, the Court must “consider the motion
governed by the ethical rules announced by the national profession in the light of the public interest
and the litigant’s rights.”44 The Fifth Circuit instructs courts to look to the “norms embodied in the
[ABA] Model Rules and the Model Code” for “the national standards” applicable to
disqualification motions.45
The Eastern District of Louisiana has adopted the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Rules
of Professional Conduct.46 These rules are identical to the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional
Conduct. Louisiana’s Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7, which addresses concurrent conflicts of
interest, reads as follows:
40 Id. at 6–7.
41 F.D.I.C. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 50 F.3d 1304, 1311–12 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting In re Am. Airlines, Inc.,
972 F.2d 605, 610 (5th Cir. 1992)).
42 Id. at 1312.
43 Id.
44 Id.
45 Id.
46 See LR 83.2.3.
7
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the
representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of
interest exists if:
(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another
client; or
(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients
will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client,
a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.
(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under
paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide
competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;
(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client
against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other
proceeding before a tribunal; and
(4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
The Comments to ABA Model Rule 1.7 explain:
Resolution of a conflict of interest problem under this Rule requires the lawyer to:
1) clearly identify the client or clients; 2) determine whether a conflict of interest
exists; 3) decide whether the representation may be undertaken despite the
existence of a conflict, i.e., whether the conflict is consentable; and 4) if so, consult
with the clients affected under paragraph (a) and obtain their informed consent,
confirmed in writing.
IV. Analysis
A. Standing
As an initial matter, Defendants argue that Breaud does not have standing to bring the
Motion to Determine Conflict-Free Representation. “As a general rule, courts do not disqualify an
attorney on the grounds of conflict of interest unless the former client moves for
disqualification.”47 But in situations where a conflict is “manifest and glaring” or “open and
obvious” in such a way that “confront[s] the court with a plain duty to act,” a motion to disqualify
47 In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation, 530 F.2d 83, 88 (5th Cir. 1976) (internal citations
omitted).
8
can be successful even when brought by a non-former client.48 When a potential conflict of interest
issue arises, it is not only the attorneys’ duty to ensure their clients know of the conflict, but it falls
on the court to ensure litigants are fully aware of the nature and threat the conflict poses.49 If a
district court is confronted with unethical conduct in a proceeding before it, that court is “obliged
to take measures against” that conduct.50
Courts have found that potential conflicts of interest caused by the same attorney
representing both a municipality and its employees in a Section 1983 claim are “open and
obvious,” thus fitting within the narrow exception.51 Here, the City Attorney’s Office represents
Cantrell, Davis, and the City. Thus, the potential for a conflict is open an obvious, and Plaintiff
has standing to bring this Motion.
B. Whether a Conflict of Interest Exists
No Fifth Circuit case creates a binding rule on whether a concurrent conflict of interest
exists when an attorney or law firm represents a municipality, while simultaneously representing
individual government officials in the same action. But the Fifth Circuit has expressed in dicta its
concern that “a serious problem of conflict of interest could exist in . . . 1983 actions in which one
attorney represents both a county and a county official individually.”52 The potential conflict of a
law firm or attorney representing a municipality and individual officials in a Section 1983 suit
48 Id. at 89.
49 See, e.g., Dunton v. Suffolk Cnty., State of N.Y., 729 F.2d 903, 908 (2d Cir.), as amended on other
grounds, 748 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1984).
50 Musicus v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 621 F.2d 742, 744 (5th Cir. 1980).
51 Nagle v. Gusman, No. 12-1910, 2015 WL 1525827, at *8 (E.D. La. Apr. 2, 2015).
52 Van Ooteghem v. Gray, 628 F.2d 488, 495 n.7 (5th Cir. 1980), reh’g en banc granted, opinion vacated
on other grounds, 640 F.2d 12 (5th Cir. 1981), and on reh'g en banc, 654 F.2d 304 (5th Cir. 1981).
9
calls into question whether the attorney representing both parties “might find it difficult to protect
the confidences of his individual client[s] while serving the interests of the [municipality].”53 A
potential conflict arises from the municipality’s interest in arguing the officials were acting outside
the scope of their employment thereby avoiding liability, while government officials have an
interest in arguing they were acting in their official capacity as employees of the municipality to
prevent personal liability for their actions.54
At this stage of the litigation, Breaud has not shown that Defendants are directly adverse
to each other or that there is a significant risk that the representation of one defendant will
materially limit the lawyers’ responsibilities to another defendant. There is “no way of knowing if
and when strategic posture may change” and if and when arguments that present an obvious
conflict could be useful to a party.55 With no documentation asserting the City’s plans on
indemnifying the individual defendants or showing that the City and the individual defendants are
completely aligned in their defense theories, there is a possibility that a conflict of interest could
arise in the future. By separate order, the Court is staying this matter pending resolution of the
criminal proceedings pending against Cantrell in this District. A disqualification motion may be
raised again, if necessary, after the stay of this litigation is lifted.
Accordingly,
53 Shadid v. Jackson, 521 F. Supp. 87, 89 (E.D. Tex. 1981).
54 See Dunton, 729 F.2d at 907 (“A municipality may avoid liability by showing that the employee was not
acting within the scope of his official duties, because his unofficial actions would not be pursuant to municipal policy.
The employee, by contrast, may partially or completely avoid liability by showing that he was acting within the scope
of his official duties.”).
55 Shadid, 521 F.Supp at 90.
10
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Anne W. Breaud’s Motion to Determine
Conflict-Free Representation® is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A disqualification motion
may be raised again, if necessary, after the stay of this litigation is lifted.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 15th day of September, 2025.
NANNETTE JOMWETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6 Rec. Doc. 68.
11