Taking Money From a Client Trust Account Warrants Severe Disciplinary Sanction

Post number 5383

Stealing from a Client is Reprehensible

In Re: Derrick D.T. Shepherd, No. 2026-OB-00357, Supreme Court of Louisiana (June 25, 2026) petitioner Derrick D.T. Shepherd, a former Louisiana State Senator and attorney, pleaded guilty in 2008 to conspiracy to commit money laundering after using his client trust account to help launder nearly $141,000 in fraudulently generated bond fees. The Louisiana Supreme Court permanently disbarred him in 2012, finding that his criminal conduct, use of a trust account, false billing records, and public position warranted the most severe disciplinary sanction.

Shepard returned $75,000 to Ms. Moyo and kept the rest of the funds for himself, using $20,000 to retire his campaign debt. To conceal all of this activity, Shepard created false billing statements and time records reflecting work his law firm had purportedly done on behalf of his “client,” Ms. Moyo. The reprehensible conduct clearly fell within the scope of the permanent disbarment guidelines.

FACTS

Shepherd later sought relief from the permanent disbarment order in 2020, 2023, and again in 2026, requesting reconsideration and an evidentiary hearing on mitigation, rehabilitation, and sanction. The court denied rehearing, with Chief Justice Weimer concurring and three justices indicating they would grant relief.

LAW

The principal legal framework is Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10, which authorizes permanent disbarment in cases of especially egregious attorney misconduct and as described in the court’s commentary, bars an attorney permanently disbarred under those circumstances from applying for readmission. The concurrence also discussed Rule 1.12(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits a lawyer from representing a person in a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a judge or adjudicative officer unless all parties consent after disclosure.

DISCUSSION

Chief Justice Weimer focused on two related concerns: the finality of Shepherd’s permanent disbarment and the propriety of representation by a former justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court. The concurrence expressed concern that the former justice had participated in earlier decisions involving Shepherd while serving on the court and might possess inside knowledge of confidential deliberations. The concurrence further warned that involvement by former justices could create an appearance that influence relationships, or politics were affecting judicial decision-making rather than neutral application of the law.

ANALYSIS

The concurrence reasons that Shepherd’s request would effectively relitigate a sanction the court had definitively imposed in 2012. Although Shepherd framed the requested hearing as limited to mitigation, rehabilitation, and the application of amended Rule XIX, § 10(A)(1), the concurrence concluded that the rule does not expressly authorize such a limited rehearing or provide the relief requested. It emphasized that permanent disbarment was adopted as a deliberate public-protection measure for misconduct so serious that readmission should not be considered. Allowing Shepherd to reopen the matter, in the concurrence’s view, would undermine finality, create uncertainty for other permanent-disbarment cases, and burden the court with repeated attempts to revisit long-final disciplinary judgments.

CONCLUSION

The Louisiana Supreme Court denied Shepherd’s application for rehearing. Chief Justice Weimer concurred, concluding that Shepherd presented no new facts or arguments justifying reconsideration of his permanent disbarment and that Rule XIX should not be used as a mechanism to reopen final disciplinary decisions. The concurrence also underscored the importance of preserving public confidence in the legal profession and avoiding any appearance that former judicial status or personal connections could influence court outcomes.

ZALMA OPINION

Lawyers are expected to be honorable and care more for his client than his personal needs. A lawyer who steals from his client violates the basic oath he or she takes on being admitted to practice law. When attorney Shepard stole from Ms. Moyo and an insurer he put into motion the destruction of his career. He had no one to blame but himself and his attempts at reinstatement to the practice were doomed and he will never be allowed to practice law in Louisiana.

(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma;  Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.