IN RE: TAYLOR WAYNE CASEY (2026)

Discipline imposed. See per curiam.

CRC

JLW

JDH

JBM

PDG

JMG

AHP

Supreme Court of Louisiana May 27, 2026

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 2026-B-0374

IN RE: TAYLOR WAYNE CASEY

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Taylor Wayne Casey. Respondent is licensed to practice law only in Florida; however, the 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.

FORMAL CHARGES

On June 13, 2023, Sarah and Elmo Green, an elderly couple in their late seventies and in poor health, signed a contingency fee contract for respondent to represent them in litigation involving claims for damages sustained to their home in Lake Charles as a result of Hurricane Ida. The contract was signed by the parties in Lafayette and the matter is being litigated in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

On June 21, 2023, respondent and Jeremy Moody, the Louisiana attorney who served as co-counsel with respondent in the matter, filed a motion for respondent to appear pro hac vice as co-counsel for the Greens. The motion was granted on July 11, 2023.

Thereafter, the Greens became dissatisfied with respondent's representation. On August 3, 2023, Mrs. Green fired respondent by text message sent to his cell phone. However, respondent refused to recognize his termination or withdraw as counsel. On August 4, 2023, Mr. Moody confirmed respondent's refusal in a phone call and in a follow-up email to respondent:

Pursuant to our conversation today you acknowledge you were terminated by the clients yesterday. You instructed me to not take any action in the case that you would not recognize your termination. You further instructed that I was not to contact opposing counsel and that you would not withdraw.

On September 29, 2023, respondent sent Mr. Moody an email in which he claimed the termination was ineffective because it was not sent to respondent's law firm as required by the contingency fee contract. That same day, the Greens sent a letter to respondent's law firm address in which they confirmed his prior termination. The letter stated, in pertinent part:

As you know, we terminated you from representation in our case on August 3, 2023. We are enclosing a copy of the text sent to you firing you. ․ It is now over fifty days since firing you, and you still have taken no action to remove yourself from our case.

You called us today and told us you will not remove yourself from our case and to “do what you have to do” because you will not recognize your termination. We know Mr. Moody has also informed you [that] you were fired because we received copies of the emails he sent you.

YOU ARE FIRED AS OF AUGUST 3, 2003. Take the necessary steps to remove yourself from our case. You are not authorized to speak on our behalf. Please do not cause any more difficulties in our case.

On December 30, 2023, when respondent continued to refuse to recognize his termination and failed to withdraw as counsel for the Greens, Mr. Moody filed a motion to withdraw respondent's pro hac vice admission in the litigation. The district court granted the motion on January 25, 2024.

In November 2023, Mr. Moody filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. The ODC forwarded a copy of the complaint to respondent at his Florida bar registration address. Despite requesting and receiving two extensions of time to respond to the complaint, respondent failed to submit a response.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

In July 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 1.2(a) (a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation), 1.16(a)(3) (a lawyer shall withdraw from the representation of a client when the lawyer is discharged), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the representation), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

The formal charges were mailed via certified mail to respondent at his Florida bar registration address; however, the filing was returned. The ODC also attempted service without success at respondent's Florida bar registration email address and his last known Florida residential address.

Respondent failed to answer the formal charges. 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 hearing committee's consideration.

Hearing Committee Report

After considering the ODC's deemed admitted submission, the hearing committee made factual findings consistent with the deemed admitted facts set forth in the formal charges. Based upon those facts, the committee determined respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.

The committee determined respondent violated duties owed to his clients, the legal system, and the legal profession. He acted negligently, knowingly, and intentionally. His conduct caused actual harm to: (1) his clients by disrupting and delaying the resolution of their claims; (2) the district court, which had to spend time and resources addressing his failure to withdraw; and (3) the disciplinary system by failing to cooperate in the ODC's investigation of the complaint. Based on the ABA's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined the applicable baseline sanction is suspension.

The committee determined the following aggravating factors are present: 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 vulnerability of the victims. The committee noted that respondent presented no evidence of mitigating factors.

After further considering this court's prior jurisprudence addressing similar misconduct, the committee recommended that respondent be enjoined for one year and one day from seeking admission to the Louisiana bar, or from seeking pro hac vice admission before a Louisiana court pursuant to Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 13, or from seeking limited admission as an in-house counsel pursuant to Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 14. The committee further recommended that respondent be assessed with the costs and expenses of this proceeding.

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

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.

In cases in which the lawyer does not answer the formal charges, the factual allegations of those charges are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). Thus, the ODC bears no additional burden to prove the factual allegations contained in the formal charges after those charges have been deemed admitted. However, the language of § 11(E)(3) does not encompass legal conclusions that flow from the factual allegations. If the legal conclusion the ODC seeks to prove (i.e., a violation of a specific rule) is not readily apparent from the deemed admitted facts, additional evidence may need to be submitted in order to prove the legal conclusions that flow from the admitted factual allegations. In re: Donnan, 01-3058 (La. 1/10/03), 838 So. 2d 715.

The record in this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent failed to abide by his clients’ decision regarding choice of counsel, failed to withdraw from the representation after his clients terminated his services, and failed to protect the interests of his clients upon his termination. Respondent also failed to cooperate with the ODC's investigation into his conduct. Based on these facts, respondent has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.

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).

Respondent violated duties owed to his clients, the legal system, and the legal profession. His actions were knowing and intentional, and he caused actual harm. The baseline sanction is suspension. The aggravating factors found by the hearing committee are supported by the record. No mitigating factors are apparent from the record.

Considering respondent's misconduct in light of the substantial aggravating factors present, we agree that suspension is warranted. Because respondent does not have a Louisiana law license to suspend, we may sanction him by enjoining him from seeking the benefits of a full or limited admission to practice in this state. See, e.g., In re: Nguyen, 17-0214 (La. 4/13/17), 215 So. 3d 668, wherein a non-Louisiana attorney, while admitted pro hac vice in the Western District of Louisiana, inappropriately communicated with a criminal defendant without the permission of the defendant's counsel and then failed to cooperate with the ODC's investigation into his conduct. For this misconduct, we ordered that the attorney be enjoined for a period of one year from seeking full admission to the Louisiana bar or seeking admission to practice in Louisiana on any temporary or limited basis.

Accordingly, we hereby adjudge respondent guilty of conduct that would warrant a one year and one day suspension from the practice of law if he were a member of our bar. Recognizing that he is not a member of the bar, we order that respondent shall be enjoined for a period of one year and one day from the date of this order from seeking full admission to the Louisiana bar or seeking admission to practice in Louisiana on any 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. We will further direct the ODC to report our judgment to all jurisdictions in which respondent is currently admitted.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the hearing committee, and considering the record, it is ordered that Taylor Wayne Casey shall 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. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel is directed to report this judgment to all jurisdictions in which respondent is currently admitted. 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.