IN RE: ZACHARY RYAN MOFFETT (2023)

Joint petition for consent discipline accepted. See per curiam.

10/17/23

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 2023-B-1206

IN RE: ZACHARY RYAN MOFFETT

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent neglected a legal matter, failed to communicate with a client, and failed to refund an unearned fee. This misconduct occurred in the same time frame as the misconduct forming the basis of respondent's earlier disciplinary matter, wherein he was disbarred. Prior to the filing of formal charges addressing this new misconduct, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Zachary Ryan Moffett, Louisiana Bar Roll number 35526, be adjudged guilty of additional violations warranting discipline that shall be considered in the event he applies for readmission from his disbarment in In re: Moffett, 21-1058 (La. 10/19/21), 326 So. 3d 248, after becoming eligible to do so.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court's judgment until paid.

Respondent is presently disbarred as a result of his disregard and violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct through conversion of $130,000 in client funds, as found in In re: Moffett, 21-1058 (La. 10/19/21), 326 So.3d 248 (“Moffett I”) and In re: Moffett, 22-1039 (La. 9/7/22) 345 So.3d 420 (“Moffett II”) (“A lawyer who, by virtue of his fiduciary relationship with clients, so blatantly violates the Rules of Professional Conduct and commits the tort of conversion or the crime of felony theft as did the respondent here, shall be subject to proceedings in the lawyer disciplinary system and this Court, as well as in potential civil and criminal proceedings, with the hope that a full measure of justice be achieved.”) (Crichton, J. concurring, citing In re: Christine Y. Voelkel, 21-0575 (La. 10/12/21), 325 So.3d 1056).

In submitting yet another joint petition for consent discipline for additional violations occurring during the time frame of Moffett I, respondent admits to further violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including neglecting legal matters, failing to return an unearned fee, and engaging in dishonesty, fraud and deceit. Although respondent is now disbarred, the stunning number of additional violations submitted since Moffett I will no doubt be considered if he chooses to ever apply for readmission to the bar. See In re: Hollis, 16-1360 (La. 10/10/16), 201 So. 3d 891 (respondent found guilty of additional violations warranting discipline, which shall be considered in the event he seeks readmission after becoming eligible to do so). In my view, should respondent ever seek to be readmitted to the practice of law in the State of Louisiana, he has massive obstacles to overcome, including significant restitution of converted funds.

Meanwhile, at the time of the Court's decision in this third matter involving respondent, the criminal cases arising out of these massive thefts, State of Louisiana v. Zachary Ryan Moffett, Caddo Docket Nos. 373,751 and 373,752, have yet to be scheduled for jury trial.¹ The civil suit, Davis v. Zachary Moffett and Law Office of Zachary Moffett, LLC, Caddo Parish Docket No. 617,329, also remains pending. The multiple victims who trusted this now disbarred lawyer deserve justice, but whether that justice is ultimately achieved is a question for another day.

FOOTNOTES

1.   I have addressed these troubling matters previously, stating: “[s]pecifically, this respondent faces the two felony theft charges filed by the Caddo District Attorney, which carry a maximum hard labor term of five years at hard labor if convicted. La. R.S. 14:67 (B)(2). See State of Louisiana v. Zachary Ryan Moffett, Caddo Parish Docket Nos., 373,751 and 373,752. Furthermore, respondent has also been named a defendant in a civil matter arising out of alleged improper workplace conduct. See Davis v. Zachary Moffett and Law Offices of Zachary Moffett, LLC, Caddo Parish Docket No. 617,329.” In re: Moffett, 21-1058 (La. 10/19/21), 326 So. 3d 248 (Crichton, J., additionally concurring).

Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.