The name “Sudduth and Associates” has had an enduring legacy that has spanned three generations and continues to grow. The founder of the original Sudduth & Associates, James E. Sudduth, was a dedicated public servant for over 40 years, serving as Mayor of the City of Lake Charles then Port Director for the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District before opening his own economic consulting firm. His son, James “Bo” Sudduth, II, expanded the family business, and name, to include property management.​

As the third generation, James E. Sudduth III started the law firm of Sudduth & Associates L.L.C., and with the law firm, came a new era of expansion – uniting public service, economic development and property management with an old fashioned desire to represent the legal needs of our clients.

Sudduth & Associates​

Name You Know, Attorneys You Trust.​

SEND

 

This field is required.

Thank You!

The form has been successfully sent.

This field is required.

This field is required.

This field is required.

Our Mission

Our Philosophy

Practice Areas

Technology is continually reshaping the legal industry, and we aim to be a step ahead of the pack. As a small firm serving Louisiana and Texas, we need the ability to be in multiple locations at once to address multiple concerns ranging from filing a petition, deposing a witness, or a court appearance. At Sudduth and Associates, that is not a problem.​

Our Vision

We believe in family and community and encourage interests outside the practice of law. We welcome you to become a part of our family and experience excellent service and traditional values in everything we do. Join with us as we continue our multi-generational tradition of service and leadership in this wonderful community we call home.

Attorneys

James E. Sudduth III

Managing Partner

Adrien Lorrain

Associate Attorney

Kourtney Kech

Associate Attorney

Lori L. Nunn

Of Counsel

Welcome to Louisiana

James E.  Sudduth III

James E. Sudduth III

James E.  Sudduth III

James E. Sudduth III

James E.  Sudduth III

James E. Sudduth III

James E.  Sudduth III

James E. Sudduth III

Contact Us

Testimonials

These guys are thorough, competent, confident, knowledgeable, and so much more. This is a law firm that cares about what they're doing.

Highly recommended, and respected. Thank you!

Dakota S.

Sudduth &

Associates​

The name “Sudduth and Associates” has had an enduring legacy that has spanned three generations and continues to grow. The founder of the original Sudduth & Associates, James E. Sudduth, was a dedicated public servant for over 40 years, serving as Mayor of the City of Lake Charles then Port Director for the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District before opening his own economic consulting firm. His son, James “Bo” Sudduth, II, expanded the family business, and name, to include property management.​​

As the third generation, James E. Sudduth III started the law firm of Sudduth & Associates L.L.C., and with the law firm, came a new era of expansion – uniting public service, economic development and property management with an old fashioned desire to represent the legal needs of our clients.

Practice Areas

Our Vision

Attorneys

Contact us

Testimonials

Child Custody and Moving Away:What to expect​

Custody battles are difficult enough as is, but adding a move out of state or even the country to the situation makes things much more complicated. Read below to learn what factors the courts take into consideration when deciding whether or not children of divorced families are permitted to move away with one parent.  Success Formulas for Move-Away Custody Disputes Why it is imperative that attorneys handling move-away cases both understand the nuances of the law and are effective in making a persuasive initial factual showing. By Maya Shulman After six months of tense negotiations, divorcing parents Robert and Emma (names changed) finally worked out a custody arrangement regarding their two young sons. The court decreed that the children’s primary residence would be with Emma, but she and Robert shared joint legal custody. Both parents were adhering to the visitation arrangement, the children were adjusted and doing well in school, and the relationships between both parents and children appeared to be positive.Two years later, Emma got engaged. Unexpectedly, her fiancé’s company moved its headquarters (and the fiancé’s position) from California to Arizona. Emma assumed that as the primary residential parent, she had the prerogative to move with the children to be with her fiancé. Robert had quite a different perspective. Since both parents had joint legal custody, he felt he had equal say in where the children were raised. He was unhappy about the boys moving, as were the children. Both Robert and the boys worried their bond would weaken with distance. Robert feared to be, at best, a “weekend dad” and at worst the forgotten dad. Ultimately, Emma was permitted to move and take their sons. What factors did the court consider to support this outcome? The overriding principle governing litigation over proposed move-aways is codified in Family Code section 7501, subdivision(a): “A parent entitled to the custody of a child has a right to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child. General provisions affecting move-away cases are found in Family Code sections 3020 (legislative declaration of policies and resolution of conflicting policy considerations), 3087 (allowing modification or termination of joint custody orders), and 3185 (hearing if mediation does not resolve custody and visitation issues). In re Marriage of Burgess (1996), 13 Cal.4th 25 held that a custodial parent need not prove that the move is necessary where custody has been established; a custodial parent is permitted to move with children unless changed circumstances mandate otherwise. In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072 built on Burgess by holding that after an initial custody determination, a noncustodial parent may challenge a proposed move. The noncustodial parent does not have to establish that a change of custody is “essential” to prevent detriment to the children from the planned move, but only bears the initial burden of showing that the proposed relocation would cause detriment to the children, requiring a reevaluation of the children’s custody. The likely impact of the proposed move on the noncustodial parent’s relationship with the children is a relevant factor. If the noncustodial parent makes an initial showing of detriment, the court must perform the delicate and difficult task of determining whether a change in custody is in the best interests of the children. In re Marriage of Brown and Yana (2006), 37 Cal.4th 947 holds that a parent without legal or physical custody is entitled to seek modification of custody over a proposed move-away by showing detriment to the children.Factors Courts Consider When Evaluating Move-Away Cases In evaluating move-aways, courts consider: Ensuring that the children maintain stable and continuous contact with both parents.How much time the children spend with each parent under the current arrangement, how long the current custody order has been in place, the children’s ties to friends, school, community activities, and the special needs of the children.The children’s age.The relationship of the children with both parents.The relationship between the parents. The contact factor requires the court to evaluate distance from the stay-behind parent, availability for visitation, cost for exercising visitation (i.e. travel or other costs), the burden on the children by not seeing the stay-behind parent as frequently, and whether the move is for legitimate reasons or merely a bad faith effort to frustrate visitation with the other parent. In California, the rule-of-thumb distance for a case to be considered a “move-away” is 50 miles. Parents considering moving out of state would be wise to check custody and visitation guidelines in the receiving state. Be able to demonstrate a good reason for the move and how it would be detrimental for the child/children to NOT move.Be able to demonstrate that the move is really legitimate. Each move-away case presents unique circumstances, so a success formula is rarely predictable. It is imperative that attorneys handling these matters both understand the nuances of the law and are effective in making a persuasive initial factual showing, as family law courts have wide discretion about custody and visitation, and are rarely reversed in move-away determinations. Link to the original article >  

Bills signed into Louisiana lawby Gov. Edwards​

Not something that the average person keeps up with but here at Sudduth & Associates we like to stay abreast of all legislative changes. On Thursday, May 3, Governor John Bel Edwards signed twenty bills from the 2018 Legislative Session into law.Here's a list of those acts: ACT 1 – SB 175 Provides for the establishment and maintenance of a monument on the east side of the state capitol to honor the sacrifices of Louisiana Gold Star FamiliesACT 2 – SB 174 Provides relative to the Old Arsenal MuseumACT 3 – SB 167 Re-creates the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and ForestryACT 4 – HB 28 Provides for the vesting period for members of the Municipal Employees' Retirement System of LouisianaACT 5 – HB 75 Updates citations and terminology for certain child care facilities in provisions relating to sex offendersACT 6 – HB 109 Re-creates the Department of Children and Family ServicesACT 7 – HB 247 Provides relative to types of coverage available under surplus lines insuranceACT 8 – HB 313 Provides for the frequency of meetings of the Louisiana Agricultural Commodities CommissionACT 9 – HB 325 Establishes a permit fee for milk, dairy farms, and milk processing plantsACT 10 – HB 330 Provides for insurance producer prelicensing program requirementsACT 11 – HB 363 Provides relative to the registration of controlling persons for business entities acting as insurance producersACT 12 – HB 366 Provides relative to nonprofit funeral service associationsACT 13 – HB 641 Provides relative to the licensing and regulation of insurance producersACT 14 – SB 35 Provides relative to the discretion vested in the commissioner of insurance to levy fines for the violation of complaint directivesACT 15 – SB 36 Provides relative to continuing education requirements for insurance producersACT 16 – SB 37 Provides relative to the registration of catastrophe or emergency claims adjustersACT 17 – SB 86 Provides relative to continuing education for insurance adjustersACT 18 – SB 87 Provides relative to the electronic filing of documentsACT 20 – SB 272 Provides for health insurance policy coverage of incarcerated persons prior to adjudication Copyright 2018 KPLC. All rights reserved. ​

...
...

Blog

Visit Us: 1109 Pithon Street Lake Charles, LA 70605  |

hablamos español