On August 11, 2022, the Supreme Court of Louisiana dismissed the case brought by the Office of the Disciplinary Council against Atty. Andre R. Belanger for violation of Rules of Professional Conduct.

The case is styled ‘In the matter of Andre R. Belanger’ with Case #20-DB-057.

The charges cited rules of professional conduct Rule 7.7.  which states that: 

Subject to the exemptions stated in Rule 7.8, any lawyer who advertises services through any public media or through unsolicited written communications sent in compliance with Rule 7.4 or 7.6(c) shall file a copy of each such advertisement or unsolicited written communication with the Committee for evaluation of compliance with these Rules. The copy shall be filed either prior to or concurrently with the lawyer’s first dissemination of the advertisement or unsolicited written communication and shall be accompanied by the information and fee specified in subdivision (d) of this Rule. A filing number, as detailed in Rule 7.2(a)(3), shall be assigned and provided to the lawyer by the Louisiana State Bar Association at the time of filing. If the lawyer has opted to submit an advertisement or unsolicited written communication in advance of dissemination, in compliance with subdivision (b) of this Rule, and the advertisement or unsolicited written communication is then found to be in compliance with the Rules, that voluntary advance submission shall be deemed to satisfy the regular filing requirement set forth above.

The rules of professional conduct can be found here.

Summary of the filing shows:

On March 13, 2020, Richard Lemmler, with the LSBA, provided ODC with evidence of a recently-published advertisement in Super Lawyers Magazine(Louisiana 2020). According to Mr. Lemmler’s review of the records kept by the LSBA, the advertisement was not filed with the LSBA“either prior to or concurrently with the lawyer’s first dissemination of the advertisement,” as required by Rule 7.7(c). Mr. Lemmler further confirmed that Belanger did not file the advertisement with the LSBA as a “late filing.” The respondent has confirmed that he did not pre-file the advertisement with the LSBA nor pay the LSBA the required filing fee, violating Rule 7.7(c).

However, the Board finds that the advertisement in the Louisiana Super Lawyers was a communication mailed only to other Lawyers. Therefore, the advertisement was exempt from the pre-filing requirement under Rule 7.8(d). Consequently, it is not necessary to determine whether the content of the advertisement exceeded the limitations of the “safe harbor” provisions of Rule 7.2(b)(1), including the provision in Rule 7.2(b)(1)(K) requiring that a photograph be taken before a plain background.

The Committee ultimately concluded that no rules were violated by Respondent as the evidence does not support a violation of Rule 7.7(c). The report is somewhat confusing in that the Committee stated in the Procedural History section that “Respondent did not knowingly violate the Rules of Professional Conduct in a manner which would rise to the level of any sort of discipline ” and stated in the Findings of Fact section that “it would be overly harsh to recommend any sort of sanction for this perceived infraction. “

The filing states that:

“The general internet advertisement which indicates that Super Lawyers is mailed to law school libraries does not constitute clear and convincing evidence that the particular advertisement at issue here was included in a magazine that was mail led to law school libraries. Further, precluding the exemption because the magazine was distributed to law school libraries would be too fine a distinction as law schools certainly include attorneys and can reasonably be considered part of the legal profession and not consumers.”

Having reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in this matter, the Board finds that ODC has failed to carry its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.

The Disposition states that:

“For the foregoing reasons, the Board hereby dismisses the formal charges that were filed against Respondent, André R. Bélanger, bearing number 20-DB-057.”

As of today, Mr. Bélanger is listed on the website of law firm Manasseh, Gill, Knipe & Belanger as a practicing attorney. His info can be found at the firm’s site online. He attended Loyola University, graduating in 2001. Bélanger practices in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.