The Louisiana Supreme Court issued a suspension against attorney Henry L. Klein on December 18, 2025, continuing a decades-long pattern of disciplinary actions against the veteran lawyer who has practiced law in the state since 1968.
The court's per curiam decision in case No. 2025-B-0537 arose from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel against Klein, who was already suspended from practice at the time of the proceeding. The decision was not unanimous, with Justice Hughes dissenting and advocating for a lesser sanction, while Justice Griffin dissented on grounds that the punishment was too harsh.
Klein's disciplinary record spans nearly six decades of practice and includes multiple prior sanctions. According to court records, he has received three formal private reprimands in 1975, 1988, and 1989, along with two admonitions in 1993 and 2018 for various disciplinary infractions. His suspension history includes a 90-day suspension in 1987 and a six-month suspension in 1989.
The most recent charges against Klein stem from his conduct while representing a client in pending litigation in 2023. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel alleged that Klein engaged in several problematic behaviors during the representation. These included making unsubstantiated disparaging remarks about both the trial judge and opposing counsel, which violated professional conduct standards regarding respectful treatment of the judicial system and fellow attorneys.
Additionally, Klein was accused of engaging in harassing communications with the trial court's law clerk, conduct that undermines the proper functioning of the judicial process. The charges also alleged that he continued filing duplicative pleadings into the court record despite being ordered by the trial court to refrain from such filings without first obtaining leave of court.
Perhaps most seriously, Klein was charged with removing the case to federal court solely for the purpose of delay, a practice that constitutes an abuse of the judicial system and wastes court resources. Such tactical maneuvers designed purely to obstruct proceedings rather than serve legitimate legal purposes violate attorney ethical obligations.
The pattern of Klein's disciplinary history suggests persistent issues with professional conduct spanning multiple decades. His first suspension came in 1987, detailed in *Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Klein* (511 So. 2d 1137), referred to as "Klein I" in court records. Just two years later, in 1989, he faced another suspension lasting six months, documented in *Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Klein* (538 So. 2d 559), known as "Klein II."
The frequency and nature of Klein's disciplinary violations raise questions about the effectiveness of progressive discipline in attorney regulation. Despite multiple previous sanctions including suspensions, reprimands, and admonitions, Klein continued to engage in conduct that violated professional standards.
The split among justices in the current case reflects the ongoing debate within the legal profession about appropriate sanctioning for repeat offenders. Justice Hughes's dissent suggesting a lesser sanction may reflect concerns about proportionality or specific circumstances of the case. Conversely, Justice Griffin's view that the punishment was too harsh suggests disagreement about the severity warranted by Klein's actions.
The Louisiana Supreme Court's decision to suspend Klein rather than impose a lesser sanction like another reprimand or admonition likely reflects the serious nature of the charges and his extensive prior disciplinary history. Attorney suspensions remove lawyers from practice temporarily, protecting both clients and the integrity of the legal system while allowing for potential rehabilitation.
The case highlights ongoing challenges in attorney regulation and the balance between rehabilitation and protection of the public. Klein's nearly 60-year career demonstrates both the longevity possible in legal practice and the persistent nature of some professional conduct problems.
For Klein, who was already suspended from practice when these charges were filed, the additional suspension extends his removal from legal practice. The decision serves as a reminder to the legal profession about the importance of maintaining professional standards throughout one's career, regardless of experience or tenure.
The Louisiana legal community will likely view this decision as part of the state's ongoing efforts to maintain professional standards and protect both clients and the integrity of the judicial system. The case also demonstrates the Supreme Court's willingness to impose meaningful sanctions on attorneys with extensive disciplinary histories, even when justices disagree on the appropriate level of punishment.