HAYNES v. OMNI ENERGY TRANSPORTATION CORP (2026)

Granted in part and denied in part. The writ is granted for the sole purpose of addressing the actions of Joel Brent Goudarzi, a Texas attorney who was admitted by the district court on a pro hac vice basis. Acting pursuant to our original jurisdiction over the practice of law under La. Const. Art. V and the provisions of Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 13, we find Mr. Goudarzi's actions in this matter have violated the terms of his pro hac vice admission.

Accordingly, we hereby direct that the October 18, 2023 order of the district court granting pro hac vice admission to Joel Brent Goudarzi and the law firm of Goudarzi & Young LLP be and hereby is immediately rescinded and revoked. In all other respects, the writ is denied.¹

I agree with the majority's finding that Mr. Goudarzi's actions violated the terms of his pro hac vice admission, but I would not revoke the district court's October 18, 2023 order.

The trial court described the behavior of plaintiff's counsel, Joel Brent Goudarzi, at the depositions of the defense witnesses as “abusive and disrespectful,” “unprofessional, bullying and demeaning.” It further found that Mr. Goudarzi employed aggressive tactics in deposing those witnesses, observing:

The depositions began in a cordial manner but usually quickly turned aggressive. Mr. Goudarzi would word questions in a way to get the answer he wanted. If the deponent did not answer the way Goudarzi wanted, he then quickly became a bully. He would begin badgering them about the need to tell the truth and then imply that they were lying, sometimes explicitly calling the deponent a liar. He would also start bragging about his past successes and start intimidating the deponent with threats of a focus group, a large verdict that would be the deponent's fault, or insisting that he would not talk settlement unless the deponent was fired. After employing all these tactics, he would start asking many smaller questions, until he led the deponent back to the original question, in hopes of getting the answer he wanted, even if the new answer was not what the deponent believed or testified to earlier.

In my view, Mr. Goudarzi exhibited “an outrageous disregard for the sacred profession we ․ have chosen.” See In re McCool, 15-0284, p. 41 (La. 6/30/15), 172 So. 3d 1058, 1089 (J. Crichton, concurring). “[B]eing a zealous advocate does not equate to such repugnant disrespect for the system we are charged to honor and serve.” Id., 15-0284, p. 41, 172 So. 3d at 1090. Mr. Goudarzi's conduct in this state warrants no less than the revocation of his pro hac vice status.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We also deny as moot defendants’ motion to withdraw their request for expedited attention.

PER CURIAM

Weimer, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns reasons. McCallum, J., concurs and assigns reasons.