IN RE: Samuel Robert AUCOIN (2026)

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Samuel Robert Aucoin, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently suspended from practice.

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 1991.

In 2020, we placed respondent on interim suspension for threat of harm to the public. In re: Aucoin, 20-0979 (La. 8/10/20), 300 So. 3d 838. In 2021, we suspended respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day for practicing law while ineligible to do so, providing the Louisiana State Bar Association with an altered certificate of completion for a continuing legal education course, and making false statements about the altered certificate to the ODC and at the formal hearing. In re: Aucoin, 21-0847 (La. 12/7/21), 328 So. 3d 409 (“Aucoin I”). Respondent did not seek reinstatement following his suspension.

In 2024, we suspended respondent for three years, to run concurrently with the suspension imposed in Aucoin I, for neglecting legal matters, failing to communicate with clients, failing to refund an unearned fee, knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, committing criminal and dishonest conduct, and failing to cooperate with the ODC in its investigations. In re: Aucoin, 23-1513 (La. 3/12/24), 380 So. 3d 559 (“Aucoin II”).

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

FORMAL CHARGES

In February 2024, respondent was arrested by the Franklin Police Department for shoplifting at the Walmart store where he was employed. According to the police report, a Walmart security associate was notified that respondent was taking food and beverages without paying for them. The associate indicated that respondent began doing so on December 7, 2023, one day after he began working at Walmart. After being alerted to the activity, the associate began checking every transaction or attempted transaction made by respondent. Typically, respondent pretended to scan items by covering the bar code on the product or pretended to pay for items by placing cash or a credit card where it looked like he was purchasing the items. On occasion, he would purchase a soft drink and not scan other items. In total, respondent shoplifted $385.61 in store merchandise.

In January 2025, following a trial in the Franklin City Court, respondent was found guilty of theft. He was sentenced to thirty days in jail, suspended, placed on one year of probation, and ordered to pay a $100 fine and court costs. He is also now banned from Walmart.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

In August 2025, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent, alleging that his conduct as set forth above violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct) and 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act reflecting adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer).

Although respondent was personally served with the formal charges, he failed to answer. Accordingly, the factual allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). No formal hearing was held, but the parties were given an opportunity to file with the hearing committee written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue of sanctions. Respondent filed nothing for the committee's consideration.

Hearing Committee Report

After considering the ODC's deemed admitted submission, the hearing committee acknowledged that the factual allegations set forth in the formal charges were deemed admitted and found that the charges are supported by the exhibits filed in this matter. The committee also noted that respondent's conviction of theft is now final. Based on these facts, the committee determined that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.

The committee found that respondent violated duties owed to the public and the legal profession. He was convicted of a crime that requires an intentional act.¹ His misconduct caused harm to Walmart and the legal profession. Considering the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the applicable baseline sanction is disbarment.

The committee determined that the following aggravating factors are present: a prior disciplinary record, a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, substantial experience in the practice of law, and illegal conduct. The committee also found that respondent's actions were further aggravated by his failure to cooperate at all with the ODC's investigation. The committee noted that respondent did not present any mitigating factors or evidence of remorse for his criminal conduct.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the committee considered the cases of In re: Benoit, 23-0342 (La. 5/2/23), 359 So. 3d 1286, and In re: LaMartina, 17-0430 (La. 12/6/17), 235 So. 3d 1061. In Benoit, the respondent was arrested for shoplifting and had warrants outstanding for failure to appear and/or pay associated fines or costs in connection with moving violations. Numerous aggravating factors were present, and the sole mitigating factor was the absence of a prior disciplinary record. In LaMartina, the respondent pleaded guilty to two shoplifting charges and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. Numerous aggravating factors were present, including a prior disciplinary record, and no mitigating factors were present. The court imposed a three-year suspension in both cases.

The committee concluded that respondent's prior misconduct, which includes his pattern of repeatedly being dishonest and his forging of evidence to the bar, was borderline sufficient to be disbarred, and thus, requires a higher degree of scrutiny. Furthermore, his current suspension has not served as a deterrent to prevent further misconduct. Under the circumstances presented and considering the factors mentioned above, the committee concluded the appropriate sanction is disbarment.

Accordingly, the committee recommended that respondent be disbarred. The committee also recommended that he be assessed with the costs and expenses of this proceeding.

Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the committee's report. Therefore, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G), the disciplinary board submitted the committee's report to the court for review.

DISCUSSION

Bar disciplinary matters come within the original jurisdiction of this court. La. Const. art. V, § 5(B). When the disciplinary proceedings involve an attorney who has been convicted of a crime, the conviction is conclusive evidence of guilt and the sole issue presented is whether respondent's crimes warrant discipline, and if so, the extent thereof. Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19(E); In re: Boudreau, 02-0007 (La. 4/12/02), 815 So. 2d 76; Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Wilkinson, 562 So. 2d 902 (La. 1990). The discipline to be imposed in a given case depends upon the seriousness of the offense, the circumstances of the offense, and the extent of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Perez, 550 So. 2d 188 (La. 1989).

In the instant case, respondent was convicted of theft. By his conviction, respondent has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.

The record supports a finding that respondent violated duties owed to the public and the legal profession. His actions were intentional and caused actual harm. The applicable baseline sanction is disbarment.

The record supports the following aggravating factors: a prior disciplinary record, a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, substantial experience in the practice of law, and illegal conduct. The sole mitigating factor present is the imposition of other penalties or sanctions.

Considering respondent's prior disciplinary record, as well as the numerous other aggravating factors present, we agree that disbarment is appropriate. Accordingly, we will adopt the hearing committee's recommendation.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the hearing committee, and considering the record, it is ordered that Samuel Robert Aucoin, Louisiana Bar Roll number 20682, be and he hereby is disbarred. His name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys and his license to practice law in the State of Louisiana shall be revoked. 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.   La. R.S. 14:67 defines theft as follows:Theft is the misappropriation or taking of anything of value which belongs to another, either without the consent of the other to the misappropriation or taking, or by means of fraudulent conduct, practices, or representations. An intent to deprive the other permanently of whatever may be the subject of the misappropriation or taking is essential. [Emphasis added.]

PER CURIAM