IN RE: David BELFIELD (2026)

This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, David Belfield, III, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana.

PRIOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY

Before we address the current charges, we find it helpful to review respondent's prior disciplinary history. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana in 1989.

In 1994, respondent was admonished by the disciplinary board for failing to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of a complaint. In 2011, the board admonished respondent for neglecting a legal matter, failing to communicate with a client, and failing to keep financial records. In 2012, this court publicly reprimanded respondent for failing to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of a complaint. In re: Belfield, 12-1690 (La. 9/28/12), 98 So. 3d 796.

Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the misconduct at issue in the present proceeding.

UNDERLYING FACTS

Count I

In October 2019, Carlas Rayford hired respondent to represent her in a divorce, spousal support, and community property partition. She paid respondent $2,500 for the representation. Ms. Rayford believed she was granted a divorce in 2021, but she was unable to obtain a record of her divorce from the court. Respondent failed to return Ms. Rayford's telephone calls and failed to provide a refund of the attorney's fees she paid, despite her request for same. In March 2022, Ms. Rayford filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the complaint.

The ODC subsequently obtained the case record from the online database for the Orleans Parish Clerk of Court. The record contained a judgment of divorce that was stamped “DENIED” and signed by Judge Lori Jupiter on August 17, 2021. By letter dated September 15, 2023, Judge Jupiter confirmed to the ODC that although the divorce was granted in open court in 2021, the judgment submitted by respondent had been denied due to improper form.¹

The ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.5(f)(5) (failure to refund an unearned fee), and 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count II

In August 2022, Mason Ceasar filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the complaint.

The ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated Rule 8.1(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count III

In May 2022, Terri Van Buren hired respondent to probate a succession, paying him a $2,500 deposit towards a $5,000 fee. Thereafter, respondent neglected the case and failed to communicate with Ms. Van Buren. Ms. Van Buren terminated the representation and made several requests for a refund of the attorney's fee she paid, but respondent did not refund any portion of the fee. In August 2022, Ms. Van Buren filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the complaint.

The fee dispute was submitted to the Louisiana State Bar Association's Fee Dispute Resolution Program. In June 2023, the arbitrator ruled that respondent was entitled to be paid for the initial consultation with Ms. Van Buren and for his review of the court record, but that he owed Ms. Van Buren a $1,300 refund. Although respondent promised to promptly refund the fee, he did not do so until September 2023.

The ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(5), and 8.1(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count IV

In September 2021, Alvin Joseph hired respondent to represent him in a criminal case, paying him $2,900 towards a $3,000 fee. Respondent failed to communicate with Mr. Joseph, neglected the case, and failed to appear in court on two occasions, resulting in the judge issuing an attachment for respondent. (The attachment was later recalled.) Respondent failed to return any portion of the fee despite informing Mr. Joseph he would do so. In November 2022, Mr. Joseph filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the complaint.

The ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f)(5), and 8.1(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count V

In June 2022, Terrence Williams hired respondent to represent him in a criminal case. Respondent failed to communicate with Mr. Williams and failed to appear in court on multiple occasions. In March 2023, Mr. Williams filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the complaint.

The ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 8.1(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

In September 2023, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent. He answered the formal charges and denied that he violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent specifically denied that the complainants were due any refund of attorney's fees, with the exception of Ms. Van Buren, whom he had already paid. Respondent also indicated that any delay in his cooperation with the ODC was due to medical issues from which he suffered, including “multiple surgeries, hospitalizations, covid infections (2) and extensive medications prescribed.”

Following the filing of respondent's answer, the matter proceeded to a formal hearing on the merits.

Hearing Committee Report

In its 41-page report, the hearing committee made findings consistent with the formal charges as set forth above, and summarized those findings as follows:

Respondent failed to act with any reasonable diligence in his communications with his clients or the ODC. Respondent refused to return phone calls or respond to correspondence and text messages, and he failed to appear for court hearings. The claims that his continued failure to cooperate with the ODC was due to medical issues and medications are without merit. Rather, his failure was intentional because he was well enough to attend court, file documents on behalf of other clients, and travel out of state. Respondent was given several opportunities to cooperate but failed.

Based on these findings, the committee determined respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.

The committee determined that respondent violated duties owed to his clients, the legal system, and the legal profession. He acted negligently, knowingly, and intentionally in his failure to cooperate with the ODC in five separate complaints. His conduct caused harm to his clients and the ODC, which had to expend resources in an effort to work with him to obtain files and sworn statements.

Regarding Count I, respondent violated the duty of diligence and failed to adequately communicate with Ms. Rayford. He acted knowingly or, at the very least, negligently. The client contacted him regularly while the matter was pending and unresolved. In spite of her multiple attempts to reach him, he did not follow up with the court to ensure the matter was advancing to conclusion. He delayed considerably from the time he filed a proposed judgment of divorce before learning the judgment was not approved by the judge. This failure led to the delay in obtaining a judgment, causing considerable harm to the client. She was under the impression for several months that her judgment of divorce was finalized, and later learned the judgment was seriously delayed.

As to Count II, respondent failed to comply with the ODC's investigation by missing deadlines to provide information and by failing to respond to the ODC's attempts to contact him.

With respect to Count III, respondent failed to enroll in Ms. Van Buren's case and failed to adequately communicate with her during the representation. The client endured considerable stress due to not receiving any information about her matter. She waited several weeks for an update about her case, only to learn that respondent had never enrolled as her counsel. Respondent failed to timely respond to the ODC's multiple requests for information.

With respect to Counts IV and V, respondent failed to appear in court for his clients on multiple occasions, which led to considerable harm to his clients as they faced the stress of appearing in court without representation and guidance. After failing to appear multiple times, the court specifically ordered respondent to appear, which is not an ordinary circumstance. Respondent also failed to timely respond to the ODC's requests for information about the matter.

The committee noted that respondent failed to advance his clients’ matters in a diligent manner, which led to considerable harm to his clients by way of stress and unnecessary delays. The committee concluded that respondent's behavior is “simply unacceptable” and “shows a pattern of utter disregard” for his clients and their cases.

After considering the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee found that the applicable baseline sanction is suspension. The committee determined that the following aggravating factors are present: a prior disciplinary record, a dishonest or selfish motive, and substantial experience in the practice of law. The committee noted that respondent did not file anything for its consideration of mitigating factors, although he testified that he had multiple medical problems preventing him from providing adequate representation to clients or from cooperating with the ODC. Respondent did not exhibit any signs of remorse at the hearing, and his questioning of his former clients was accusatory and combative at times.

After further considering the court's prior jurisprudence addressing similar misconduct, the committee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. The committee also recommended that respondent be ordered to refund the unearned portion of legal fees to Ms. Rayford and Mr. Joseph. The committee further recommended that respondent be assessed with all costs and expenses of this proceeding.

Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee's March 18, 2025 report. Having received no objections, the disciplinary board submitted the committee's report directly to the court for consideration pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G). Thereafter, respondent notified the court that he had forwarded an objection to the board on April 6, 2025. Based upon respondent's representation, we remanded the matter for review by the board pursuant to Rule XIX, § 11(G), which provides that “[t]he court, in its discretion, may remand any hearing committee report for further review by the board.”

Disciplinary Board Recommendation

After review, the disciplinary board determined that the hearing committee's factual findings are not manifestly erroneous and are supported by the record. The board adopted these findings, and for the reasons stated in detail in the committee's report, agreed that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.

The board determined that respondent violated duties owed to his clients, the legal system, and the legal profession. His conduct was negligent, knowing, and intentional. His lack of diligence and failure to communicate with clients caused delays and client stress, wasted client time, and created an unnecessary use of court resources in handling multiple continuances. His failure to timely return unearned fees caused loss of use of the funds by clients. His failure to cooperate in multiple investigations is damaging to the legal profession and the disciplinary system and caused additional use of the ODC's resources and delayed its investigations. Based on the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the board determined that the applicable baseline sanction is suspension.

The board found that the following aggravating factors are present: a prior disciplinary record, a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, and substantial experience in the practice of law. As to mitigating factors, the board noted that respondent's prior disciplinary offenses are remote in time but nevertheless significant as they involve similar misconduct repeated in the instant matter. The board added that although respondent testified about his various medical problems, he did not timely identify evidence of the extent of or any limitations presented by those problems or evidence of any other issue, and thus, he was not allowed to introduce such evidence at the hearing.

After further considering the court's prior jurisprudence addressing similar misconduct, the board recommended respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day. The board also recommended that respondent be ordered to refund the unearned portion of the legal fees to Ms. Rayford and Mr. Joseph, and take at least eight hours of continuing legal education in the area of law office management prior to being reinstated. Finally, the board recommended that respondent be assessed with all costs and expenses of this proceeding.

The board's recommendation was filed in this court on April 21, 2026. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G)(1), respondent had twenty days, or until May 11, 2026, to file an objection with this court. On May 18, 2026, the court received an objection from respondent. Notably, the objection was U.S. postmarked on May 8, 2026, which would be within the twenty-day delay. However, respondent is an attorney in good standing, and he is therefore subject to the restrictions of Supreme Court Rule I, § 3(A), which provides, “[p]ursuant to La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 253(B)(2) & (3) and La. Code Crim. Proc. art. 14.1(B), attorneys licensed in the State of Louisiana and in good standing with the Supreme Court of Louisiana shall not file by United States Postal Service mail delivery or commercial mail service delivery such as Federal Express or United Parcel Service.” [Emphasis added.]

Accordingly, the clerk's office notified respondent on May 20, 2026 that his filing had been rejected. Respondent was advised that he had seven days to submit a compliant pleading in paper form in person or transmitted electronically through the court's e-filing system. The court did not receive a compliant pleading within the designated time frame; thus, this matter is being treated as if no objection had been filed.

DISCUSSION

Bar disciplinary matters fall within the original jurisdiction of this court. La. Const. art. V, § 5(B). Consequently, we act as triers of fact and conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the alleged misconduct has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re: Banks, 09-1212 (La. 10/2/09), 18 So. 3d 57.

The hearing committee made numerous and specific factual findings which lend support to its determination that respondent failed to communicate with clients, neglected legal matters, failed to refund unearned fees, and failed to cooperate with the ODC's investigations. The disciplinary board generally accepted these findings and agreed that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges. We agree that these findings are supported by the record.

Having found evidence of professional misconduct, we now turn to a determination of the appropriate sanction for respondent's actions. In determining a sanction, we are mindful that disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession, and deter future misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Reis, 513 So. 2d 1173 (La. 1987). The discipline to be imposed depends upon the facts of each case and the seriousness of the offenses involved considered in light of any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Whittington, 459 So. 2d 520 (La. 1984).

The record further supports a finding that respondent violated duties owed to his clients, the legal system, and the legal profession. His conduct was negligent, knowing, and intentional, and caused both actual and potential harm. The applicable baseline sanction is suspension.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction for respondent's misconduct, the board cited three cases addressing similar misconduct for which we imposed a one year and one day suspension. In In re: Celestine, 24-0187 (La. 4/30/24), 383 So. 3d 913, an attorney failed to fulfill his professional obligations, failed to communicate with clients, neglected legal matters, failed to expedite litigation, caused the unnecessary delay and use of court resources in a proceeding, failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations, and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. In In re: Montgomery, 18-0637 (La. 8/31/18), 251 So. 3d 401, an attorney neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to account for fees, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. In In re: Brown-Manning, 15-2342 (La. 3/4/16), 185 So. 3d 728, an attorney neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to refund unearned fees, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. Based on this case law, the board's recommended sanction is appropriate.

Accordingly, we will accept the disciplinary board's recommendation and suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the hearing committee and the disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that David Belfield, III, Louisiana Bar Roll number 19480, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. It is further ordered that respondent shall provide a refund of unearned fees, with legal interest, to Carlas Marie Rayford and Alvin Anthony Joseph. Prior to seeking reinstatement to the practice of law, respondent shall complete a minimum of eight hours of continuing legal education in the area of law office management, as approved by the Louisiana State Bar Association's Committee on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education. 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.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In her letter, Judge Jupiter advised that her office asked respondent to resubmit a proper divorce judgment for signature, but he failed to do so. With her letter, Judge Jupiter enclosed a written judgment of divorce that she prepared and signed on September 19, 2023.

PER CURIAM