On Monday, September 29, 2025, the Hearing Committee of the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board recommended that attorney Jonathan Curry Harris be suspended from practicing law for one year and one day. The recommendation stems from a disciplinary matter involving eight counts of alleged violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Jonathan Curry Harris,” with case number 25-DB-020.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) filed formal charges against Harris on May 8, 2025, citing violations of Rules 1.1(a), 1.3, 1.4(a)(b), 4.2(a), 8.1(c), and 8.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. These rules pertain to competent representation, diligence, communication with clients, communication with represented parties, cooperation with the ODC, and general misconduct.
According to the report, the ODC initiated an investigation following a complaint from Dewey and Mildred Johnson in February 2024. The ODC alleged that Harris failed to adequately respond to the Johnsons’ complaint despite multiple requests and actual notice. The report also stated that Harris only submitted an initial response after being served with a subpoena and a supplemental response after receiving notice of the ODC’s intention to proceed with formal charges.
The ODC investigation further revealed that Harris, while representing the Johnsons in a legal dispute, prepared correspondence for Ms. Johnson to send directly to the opposing party, who was also represented by counsel. This action was taken to circumvent direct communication between Harris and the opposing party. Additionally, Harris failed to appear at a scheduled pre-trial conference and neglected to file a required pre-trial order, which resulted in the Johnsons being prohibited from presenting evidence at trial, leading to a judgment against them.
Harris failed to file an answer to the formal charges, leading the ODC to file a motion to deem the factual allegations admitted. The motion was granted on June 16, 2025, and the factual allegations were deemed admitted.
The Committee found that Harris violated Rule 1.1(a) by failing to provide competent representation, and Rule 1.3 by failing to act with reasonable diligence. The Committee determined that Harris’s failure to comply with the pre-trial order prevented his clients from presenting a defense at trial, demonstrating a lack of competence and diligence.
The Committee also found that Harris violated Rule 1.4 by failing to inform his clients about his neglect regarding the pre-trial order. Additionally, the Committee determined that Harris violated Rules 4.2(a) and 8.4(a) by drafting letters for his clients to send to the opposing party, circumventing communication with the opposing party’s lawyer. Harris also violated Rule 8.1(c) by failing to cooperate with the ODC’s investigation, necessitating a subpoena for his appearance.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Committee considered factors such as the duties violated, the lawyer’s intent, the injury caused, and any aggravating or mitigating factors. The Committee noted that Harris violated duties owed to his clients, the legal system, and the profession, acting knowingly, if not intentionally, causing actual harm to his clients.
Aggravating factors included Harris’s substantial experience in the practice of law and prior disciplinary offenses. Harris had previously received a formal private reprimand in 1988 and was admonished in 1998 for similar misconduct. The remoteness of the prior offenses was considered a mitigating factor, but given little weight.
The Committee’s recommendation of a one year and one day suspension will necessitate an application for reinstatement pursuant to Rule XIX, §24, should Harris wish to return to the practice of law. The Committee also recommended that Harris be assessed with the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding.
According to Avvo, Mr. Harris is a lawyer in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He acquired his law license in Louisiana in 1969.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
