IN RE: Gerald V. DANDENEAU (2025)

Respondent is licensed to practice law only in New York; however, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) asserts jurisdiction over him in this matter pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 6(A) and Rule 8.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which together extend this court's disciplinary authority to lawyers who provide or offer to provide legal services in Louisiana.

The ODC commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent assumed the representation of clients in Louisiana and appeared on their behalf in a Louisiana court without first seeking pro hac vice admission. Prior to the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline in which respondent admitted that he violated Rules 5.5(a) and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Gerald V. Dandeneau be enjoined for a period of one year and one day from seeking admission to the Louisiana bar or seeking admission to practice in Louisiana on a temporary or limited basis, including but not limited to seeking pro hac vice admission before a Louisiana court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 13 or seeking limited admission as an in-house counsel pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 14.

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.