On Wednesday, April 24, 2024, the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board (LADB) issued their recommendation to the Louisiana Supreme Court in the disciplinary matter of attorney Ned Franklin Pierce Sonnier.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Ned Franklin Pierce Sonnier, Sr.,” with case no. 23-DB-019.

The case involved 10 counts of alleged misconduct contained in formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) against Sonnier. The charges stem from complaints made by 10 of Sonnier’s former clients regarding issues with diligence, communication, fees, terminating representation, and failure to cooperate with the ODC investigation.

Sonnier had opened a law practice in Scott, Louisiana in late 2021, but abruptly closed his office that December without notifying clients. He abandoned his practice and clients before relocating to California. This led to his interim suspension by the Louisiana Supreme Court in April 2022 over concerns of harm to the public.

In the charges, ODC alleged Sonnier violated various Rules of Professional Conduct in his representation of 10 clients in different legal matters ranging from personal injury, immigration, property damage insurance claims, and criminal defense. Several clients complained of little to no communication from Sonnier, lack of work on their cases, and unreturned fees despite work not being completed.

As Sonnier did not file an answer to the formal charges, the factual allegations were deemed admitted under Louisiana Supreme Court rules. However, the ODC still had the burden to prove any rule violations. The LADB appointed Hearing Committee No. 5 to oversee the case.

After reviewing documentary evidence and hearing arguments, the Committee concluded Sonnier violated Rules related to diligence, communication, fees, terminating representation, and failure to cooperate during the investigation. However, they could not determine his mental state and settled on finding his misconduct was at least knowing.

The Committee recommended a one-year-and-one-day suspension, restitution to clients or the Client Assistance Fund, and costs be assessed against Sonnier. They argued this balanced the seriousness of the violations while offering hope Sonnier could eventually practice again with intervention.

However, the ODC objected that disbarment was the appropriate sanction under the ABA Standards given Sonnier knowingly converted client funds and abandoned his practice, causing serious harm. They argued the Committee erred in not finding Sonnier acted intentionally in some instances.

In its review, the LADB affirmed the rule violations found by the Committee. It also made an additional factual finding based on evidence that the Client Assistance Fund had paid out nearly $7,300 total to three of Sonnier’s former clients for their claims against him.

The Board disputed the Committee’s conclusion that Sonnier only acted knowingly, finding the circumstances indicated intentional misconduct on some counts. It also did not agree that the Committee’s reasons supported a downward departure from the baseline sanction of disbarment.

In its recommendation to the Louisiana Supreme Court, the LADB endorsed ODC’s view that disbarment was warranted retroactive to Sonnier’s April 2022 interim suspension date. It also recommended he be ordered to provide restitution and pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

The recommendation states:

“The Board recommends that Ned Franklin Pierce Sonnier, Sr. be disbarred and that he be ordered to make restitution to the LSBA Client Assistance Fund for the payments made by the Fund to Mr. Nguyen, Mr. Leger, Ms. Sonnier, and Mr. and Mrs. Landry and that he be ordered to make restitution to Samuel Anderson in the amount of $5,002.00 and restitution to Stephanie Anderson in the amount of $4,233.00.”

According to avvo.com, Ms. Sonnier Sr. is a personal injury attorney in Scott, Louisiana. He attended the Louisiana State University, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, graduating in 2017. He acquired his law license in Louisiana in the same year.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.