IN RE: Elzey Jeffrey PERILLOUX (2026)

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Elzey Jeffrey Perilloux, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently on interim suspension based upon his conviction of a serious crime. In re: Perilloux, 20-1178 (La. 11/4/20), 303 So. 3d 626.

UNDERLYING FACTS

Respondent was indicted by a grand jury in St. John the Baptist Parish on three felony counts of indecent behavior with a juvenile and one count of misdemeanor sexual battery. The felony counts were tried before a jury in September 2020, and respondent was found guilty as charged.¹ The trial court found respondent guilty of the misdemeanor charge. Respondent was subsequently sentenced to four years and six months at hard labor on each count of indecent behavior with a juvenile, to run consecutively. In addition, he was sentenced to six months in parish prison on the sexual battery charge, to run consecutively to each of the indecent behavior counts. Respondent's convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. State v. Perilloux, 21-448 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/20/23), 378 So. 3d 280, writ denied, 24-0104 (La. 9/4/24), 391 So. 3d 1055.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

In November 2020, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent. Essentially, the formal charges alleged that respondent was accused of the improper touching of three girls, ages 14, 15, and 17; that criminal charges were brought against him by the Louisiana Attorney General's Office; and that he was convicted of three felony counts of indecent behavior with a juvenile and one count of misdemeanor sexual battery. The ODC alleged that by such conduct, respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct) and 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In December 2020, at respondent's request, the disciplinary proceedings were stayed pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The stay was lifted in February 2025, after respondent's convictions became final.

In August 2025, respondent answered the formal charges. He admitted his convictions, but he adamantly maintained his innocence of the criminal charges against him. Respondent stated that he was convicted and sentenced for fondling the breast of one victim “for 20 seconds” and “touching her upper chest during a shoulder rub,” and “applying sunscreen” to the “back and shoulders” of the second victim. Respondent also disputed the age of the third victim as set forth in the formal charges, contending that the misdemeanor sexual battery charge “involved the touching of an 18-year old woman, not a 17-year old girl.”²

Formal Hearing

Following the filing of respondent's answer, the matter was set for a hearing before the hearing committee. The hearing committee conducted the formal hearing on December 15, 2025. Respondent participated in the hearing by Zoom from the correctional facility where he is incarcerated.

At the outset of the hearing, respondent stipulated that he was convicted of three felony counts of indecent behavior with a juvenile and one count of misdemeanor sexual battery. Respondent also stipulated that his convictions are now final, but pointed out that he is pursuing post-conviction relief.

The ODC introduced one exhibit into evidence, consisting of three pages of court minutes reflecting the jury's guilty verdict on the indecent behavior counts and one page reflecting the trial court's guilty verdict on the misdemeanor charge. The ODC did not introduce any other documentary evidence.

Respondent was the only witness to testify before the committee. In his testimony, respondent gave a statement reiterating his “absolute innocence of the charges for which I was wrongfully convicted.” Respondent blamed numerous individuals for “the absolute horror and tragedy” that he and his family have endured as a result of the “wholly manufactured and completely false case against me,” including the Attorney General and his assistant who tried the criminal case, the trial judge, and the jury foreperson. Respondent did not offer any testimony concerning the underlying facts of the criminal case, and the ODC did not ask any such questions of respondent on cross-examination.

Hearing Committee Report

After considering the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the hearing committee found that respondent's convictions of three felony counts involving juveniles and one misdemeanor count are final. Based on these factual findings, the committee determined that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.

The committee found respondent violated duties owed to the public and the legal profession. He was convicted of crimes that require intentional acts.³ Respondent caused actual harm to the victims, who were vulnerable juveniles, and the profession. Citing the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined the baseline sanction is disbarment.

The committee found the following aggravating factors present: a prior disciplinary record,⁴ multiple offenses, vulnerability of the victims, substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 1993), and illegal conduct. In mitigation, the committee found that respondent cooperated in the proceedings against him and that other penalties and sanctions were imposed against him in connection with the criminal case.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the committee found that the prior jurisprudence of this court supports the imposition of permanent disbarment, as does Guideline 4 of the permanent disbarment guidelines.⁵ Moreover, the committee found that the criteria of Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10(A)(1) are satisfied.⁶ Respondent's misconduct was egregious, particularly given his position as a district court judge at the time of the misconduct and the fact that the three felony convictions involved juveniles. There is no reasonable expectation of significant rehabilitation in respondent's character in the future, as he continues to maintain his innocence and is focused on alleged mistreatment of him by persons who are part of the justice system. For these reasons, the committee recommended respondent be permanently disbarred.

Respondent filed an objection to the hearing committee's report.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation

A panel of the disciplinary board heard oral argument in this matter on April 16, 2026, with respondent participating by telephone. During oral argument, respondent admitted his criminal convictions, that the convictions are final, and that permanent disbarment would be an appropriate sanction given the nature of his convictions. However, he continued to maintain his innocence and objected to the findings made by the committee that flow from his convictions and that support the committee's recommendation of permanent disbarment.⁷ On June 30, 2026, the disciplinary board filed its report in this court, in which it rejected respondent's arguments and recommended that he be permanently disbarred.

After review, the board determined the hearing committee's factual findings are not manifestly erroneous and adopted same. The board also agreed that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.

The board determined respondent violated duties owed to the public and the legal profession. By definition, the crimes of which respondent was convicted require intentional acts. With respect to injury, the board noted that no evidence was presented regarding the specific conduct which resulted in respondent's criminal convictions, or the magnitude of the effect his actions had upon his victims. However, given the types of acts encompassed by the definitions of respondent's crimes, as well as the fact that there were three victims, at least two of whom were juveniles, the potential exists that very significant injury occurred.⁸ Additionally, respondent's misconduct cast a negative light on the legal profession. The board agreed with the committee that the baseline sanction is disbarment.

The board found the following aggravating factors are present: a prior disciplinary record, a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, vulnerability of the victims, substantial experience in the practice of law, and illegal conduct. In mitigation, the board found the following factors: a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, imposition of other penalties or sanctions, and remoteness of the prior disciplinary offense.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the board agreed with the committee that permanent disbarment is warranted under the court's prior jurisprudence, the permanent disbarment guidelines, and Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10(A)(1). The board therefore recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred. The board also recommended that respondent be assessed with the costs and expenses of this proceeding.

Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the disciplinary board's recommendation.

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 three felony counts of indecent behavior with a juvenile and one count of misdemeanor sexual battery. By his conviction, respondent has violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The record supports a finding that respondent violated duties owed to the public and the legal profession. His actions were intentional and caused significant harm. Considering the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the applicable baseline sanction is disbarment. The aggravating and mitigating factors found by the disciplinary board are supported by the record.

The only issue left to be resolved is whether respondent should be permanently disbarred, as the hearing committee and the board have recommended. On May 4, 2022, the court adopted amendments to Supreme Court Rule XIX related to permanent disbarment. As is set forth in the court's order, permanent disbarment may be imposed only “upon an express finding of the presence of the following factors: (1) the lawyer's conduct is so egregious as to demonstrate a convincing lack of ethical and moral fitness to practice law; and (2) there is no reasonable expectation of significant rehabilitation in the lawyer's character in the future.” The committee and the board found that both of these criteria are satisfied. We agree.

Respondent's misconduct was undoubtedly egregious and demonstrates a convincing lack of ethical and moral fitness to practice law. Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct involving juvenile victims, and as a result, he was convicted of a felony criminal offense. Such conduct is a ground for permanent disbarment under Supreme Court Rule XIX, Appendix D, Guideline 4. The first permanent disbarment factor is plainly satisfied.

The record further establishes that there is no reasonable expectation respondent's character may be rehabilitated in the future. Respondent has repeatedly minimized his conduct, characterizing his improper touching of the teenage victims as mere “innocuous physical contact.” Moreover, respondent has expressed no remorse for his actions or concern for his victims whatsoever. Any regret he has alluded to in these proceedings is limited to the extent that the criminal case affected him and his family. Under these circumstances, we find the second permanent disbarment factor is satisfied.

Considering these factors, we conclude permanent disbarment is appropriate under the circumstances presented. Accordingly, we will accept the board's recommendation and permanently disbar respondent.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and the disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Elzey Jeffrey Perilloux, Louisiana Bar Roll number 22586, be and he hereby is permanently 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. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(A), it is further ordered that respondent be permanently prohibited from being readmitted to the practice of law in this state. 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.   At the time he was indicted, respondent was a judge in the 40th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. John the Baptist. On June 29, 2018, this court disqualified respondent from exercising any judicial function, pending subsequent proceedings before the Judiciary Commission. In re: Perilloux, 18-1083 (La. 6/29/18), 248 So. 3d 1284. Respondent resigned his position as a district judge following his conviction.

2.   Respondent's answer reflects that the three victims, A.G., E.H., and S.B., were best friends with his daughters, ages 15 and 17.

3.   The crime of indecent behavior with a juvenile is defined by La. R.S. 14:81 in pertinent part as follows:A. Indecent behavior with juveniles is the commission of any of the following acts with the intention of arousing or gratifying the sexual desires of either person:(1) Any lewd or lascivious act upon the person or in the presence of any child under the age of seventeen, where there is an age difference of greater than two years between the two persons. Lack of knowledge of the child's age shall not be a defense. [Emphasis added.]The crime of misdemeanor sexual battery is defined by La. R.S. 14:43.1.1 as follows:A. Misdemeanor sexual battery is the intentional touching of the breasts or buttocks of the victim by the offender using any instrumentality or any part of the body of the offender, directly or through clothing, or the intentional touching of the breasts or buttocks of the offender by the victim using any instrumentality or any part of the body of the victim, directly or through clothing, when the offender acts without the consent of the victim. [Emphasis added.]

4.   In 2004, respondent was publicly reprimanded for notarizing a document outside the presence of the signatory. In re: Perilloux, 04-1141 (La. 6/4/04), 875 So. 2d 66.

5.   See Supreme Court Rule XIX, Appendix D, Guideline 4, which provides that permanent disbarment may be warranted when a lawyer engages in “[s]exual misconduct which results in a felony criminal conviction, such as rape or child molestation.”

6.   Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10(A)(1) provides that “the court shall only impose permanent disbarment upon an express finding of the presence of the following factors: (1) the lawyer's misconduct is so egregious as to demonstrate a convincing lack of ethical and moral fitness to practice law; and (2) there is no reasonable expectation of significant rehabilitation in the lawyer's character in the future.”

7.   For example, respondent objected to the committee's findings that he acted intentionally and that he caused harm to juveniles who are vulnerable victims.

8.   The board noted that the minutes of the criminal case reflect an observation by the trial judge that respondent “has not come to grips with the magnitude of what he had put the victims through.”

PER CURIAM

Weimer, C.J., dissents and would impose regular disbarment. Hughes, J., dissents and would impose regular disbarment. Griffin, J., dissents and would impose regular disbarment.