ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against
respondent, Felix Anthony DeJean, IV, an attorney licensed to
practice law in Louisiana.
we address the current charges, we find it helpful to review
respondent's prior disciplinary history. After being
admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana in 1997,
respondent's first encounter with the disciplinary system
occurred in 2006, when he consented to a two-year period of
probation imposed by the disciplinary board for
"physical altercations and behaviors" caused by his
bipolar disorder,  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder,
and prior use of marijuana and alcohol. In re:
DeJean, 06-DB-057 (11/10/06). As a condition of
probation, respondent and the ODC agreed that he would
execute a two-year contract with the Judges and Lawyers
Assistance Program ("JLAP"). Respondent
successfully complied with his obligations under the JLAP
contract, and in November 2008, the ODC notified respondent
that his probation had been successfully concluded.
December 2009, respondent was twice admonished by the
disciplinary board for failing to properly address fee
disputes with clients. In re: DeJean, 09-ADB-018
(12/1/09) (client Leother Dupas), and In re: DeJean,
09-ADB-019 (12/1/09) (client Jerriel Bazile).
April 2010, this court accepted a joint petition for consent
discipline and publicly reprimanded respondent in In re:
DeJean, 10-0712 (La. 4/30/10), 35 So.3d 253. The
misconduct at issue in that matter involved allegations that
respondent relied upon the false representations of his
client and failed to verify the identity of the parties who
appeared before him for the purpose of executing a notarial
2013, the disciplinary board publicly reprimanded respondent
for engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice when he acted in an abusive and threatening manner
towards the opposing party during a settlement conference.
Respondent sought review of the board's ruling in this
court. We affirmed the board's ruling as correct. In
re: DeJean, 13-2311 (La. 1/10/14), 131 So.3d 36.
this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the
misconduct at issue in the present proceeding.
March 19, 2015, respondent was present in the chambers of
Judge Kathy Johnson of the Seventh Judicial District Court
for the Parish of Concordia for a conference in a criminal
case. Also present in chambers were the District Attorney,
Bradley Burget, and First Assistant District Attorney Ann
conclusion of the conference, as the parties were leaving the
judge's chambers, a physical altercation occurred. Mr.
Burget claims that respondent exchanged words with him,
physically confronted him and "chest bumped" him.
Respondent claims that Mr. Burget instigated the altercation
and that he acted in self-defense.
was subsequently charged with simple battery in connection
with the altercation. On July 14, 2016, a trial was held
before Retired Justice Chet Traylor, sitting as judge ad hoc.
The state called the following witnesses to testify: Judge
Johnson, Ms. Siddall, the judge's assistant, Julie
Colclasure, court reporter Leona Paul, and Mr. Burget.
Respondent testified in his own defense and on
cross-examination by the state. At the conclusion of
testimony and the closing argument of counsel, Justice
Traylor found respondent guilty as charged of simple battery
upon Mr. Burget. In oral reasons for judgment, Justice
Traylor stated that he found the State had carried its burden
of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; to find otherwise
"would be to ignore the testimony of all the
taking sentencing under advisement, Justice Traylor sentenced
respondent to serve six months in the parish prison,
suspended, and placed him on eighteen months active
supervised probation with special conditions. Among other
conditions of probation, respondent was required to submit to
a psychological evaluation by Dr. John W. Thompson, Jr.,
M.D. at his own cost and enroll in and
successfully complete an anger management program.
sought appellate review of his conviction. The court of
appeal denied his application, as did this
August 2016, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent,
alleging that his conduct violated the following provisions
of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 8.4(b)
(commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a
lawyer) and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice).
answered the formal charges and admitted that he was
convicted of simple battery. However, he denied that he
violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent
maintained that he was not the aggressor in the incident with
Mr. Burget and reiterated ...