Portrait of Charles E. Leche

Charles E. Leche

Partner

Portrait of Charles E. Leche
  • Overview
  • Events
  • News
cleche@deutschkerrigan.com
New Orleans, LA — 504 593 0790
Download my vCard

Mr. Leche has over 50 years experience as a civil litigator representing corporations and insurance companies in a wide variety of matters.

His primary practice areas are: mass tort/disaster cases; insurance coverage; personal injury; product liability; and maritime, including Jones Act.

Mr. Leche is an avid photographer. He has exhibited works at large public art festivals, donated works to various charities, performs “pro bono” photography for charitable & preservation organizations.

    • Tulane University School of Law (J.D., 1971)
    • Tulane University School of Law (J.D., 1971)
    • All Louisiana Federal Courts
    • All Louisiana State Courts
    • The Supreme Court of the United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
    • All Louisiana Federal Courts
    • All Louisiana State Courts
    • The Supreme Court of the United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

  • Federal Bar Association, Past President, New Orleans Chapter

    Louisiana State Bar Association

    New Orleans Bar Association

    Louisiana Association of Defense Counsel

    Southeast Admiralty Law Institute

    Federal Bar Association, Past President, New Orleans Chapter

    Louisiana State Bar Association

    New Orleans Bar Association

    Louisiana Association of Defense Counsel

    Southeast Admiralty Law Institute

  • New Orleans Magazine "Top Lawyers" List, 2018, 2021-2025

    AV Preeminent Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rating™

    The Best Lawyers in America©, 2007-present

    "Louisiana Super Lawyers" List, 2007-2011, 2013-2017

    New Orleans Magazine "Top Lawyers" List, 2018, 2021-2025

    AV Preeminent Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rating™

    The Best Lawyers in America©, 2007-present

    "Louisiana Super Lawyers" List, 2007-2011, 2013-2017

  • LOYOLA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

    Maritime Personal Injury Course, Adjunct Professor

    YOUNG LEADERSHIP COUNCIL OF NEW ORLEANS

    Founding Member President, 1986-1987

    NEW ORLEANS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

    INTERPARISH RELATIONS COMMITTEE

    LOYOLA UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF POLITICS

    METROPOLITAN AREA COMMITTEE

    TULANE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL CLE PROGRAM SPEAKER

    MAC EDUCATION FUND

    Mini-Grant Committee

    METOPOLITAN LEADERSHIP FORUM

    TULANE UNIVERSITY

    Alumni Awards Committee

    ST. ANDREW'S EPISCOPAL SCHOOL

    Board of Directors Annual Giving Campaign, Chairman

    1988 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION 

    New Orleans Host Committee- Volunteer Attorney

    LOYOLA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

    Maritime Personal Injury Course, Adjunct Professor

    YOUNG LEADERSHIP COUNCIL OF NEW ORLEANS

    Founding Member President, 1986-1987

    NEW ORLEANS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

    INTERPARISH RELATIONS COMMITTEE

    LOYOLA UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF POLITICS

    METROPOLITAN AREA COMMITTEE

    TULANE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL CLE PROGRAM SPEAKER

    MAC EDUCATION FUND

    Mini-Grant Committee

    METOPOLITAN LEADERSHIP FORUM

    TULANE UNIVERSITY

    Alumni Awards Committee

    ST. ANDREW'S EPISCOPAL SCHOOL

    Board of Directors Annual Giving Campaign, Chairman

    1988 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION 

    New Orleans Host Committee- Volunteer Attorney

    • Charles represented a security firm in a hotel case through directed verdict at trial in federal court. The case involved multiple deaths, injuries, property damage, numerous state and federal lawsuits, some of which were consolidated for trial.
    • Charles represented a manufacturer of grain fumigant in litigation arising out of the explosion of a large grain elevator near New Orleans. The case involved multiple deaths and injuries, millions of dollars of property damage, and business interruption claims.
    • Charles represented a major shipyard in a matter involving an alleged propulsion system failure in a series of LASH vessels and in another matter involving a structural failure in a series of large oil tankers.
    • Charles represented a major oil company in litigation resulting from the cratering of an oil well into an underlying salt mine in southwest Louisiana. Charles had primary responsibility for defense of the financial and business interruption claims of the salt mining company whose mine was destroyed.
    • Charles represented a foreign shipyard defendant in litigation arising from the capsizing and sinking of a semi-submersible Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) which resulted in more than 80 deaths and loss of the rig.
    • Charles represented a defendant in a case arising from a gas explosion aboard a MODU which resulted in personal injuries, property damage and business interruption claims.
    • Charles represented a drilling and workover company in several Jones Act, General Maritime Law and related claims arising from accidents and explosions on inland drilling barges.
    • Charles represented a pressure relief valve manufacturer in a major class action and other related litigation arising from the explosion of a North Louisiana chemical plant. The explosion resulted in deaths, injuries, damage to homes and businesses, evacuation of the town adjacent to the plant, and litigation which extended over several years.
    • Charles represented a large paper and forest products manufacturer in asbestos litigation and related matters.
    • Charles represented a large chemical manufacturing company with respect to numerous personal injury and death claims and with respect to numerous class action and mass tort claims arising out of an explosion in one of the company's plants. The representation also involved numerous ancillary contractual, insurance coverage, property damage and business interruption claims.
    • Charles represented an alleged insurer of a dietary supplement manufacturer in a case in the Northern District of Texas. The case resulted in a successful motion for summary judgment on insurance coverage issues.
    • Charles represented an excess insurer in a mass tort claim arising from a chemical plant chlorine release. The case was resolved without payment by his client.
    • Charles represented an environmental remediation company in a series of cases brought by property owners arising from a major tank car train derailment. The case was resolved by successful motions for summary judgment.
    • Charles represented a drilling company in a major well blowout case.
    • Charles represented various insurers in a wide variety of insurance coverage, general liability, personal injury and property damage cases.
    • Charles served as Insurance (Coverage) Group co-liaison counsel in the “FEMA trailer” Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) proceeding.
    • Charles has also handled many maritime and offshore personal injury cases, including Jones Act, General Maritime Law, and OCSLA death and injury cases.
       
    • Charles represented a security firm in a hotel case through directed verdict at trial in federal court. The case involved multiple deaths, injuries, property damage, numerous state and federal lawsuits, some of which were consolidated for trial.
    • Charles represented a manufacturer of grain fumigant in litigation arising out of the explosion of a large grain elevator near New Orleans. The case involved multiple deaths and injuries, millions of dollars of property damage, and business interruption claims.
    • Charles represented a major shipyard in a matter involving an alleged propulsion system failure in a series of LASH vessels and in another matter involving a structural failure in a series of large oil tankers.
    • Charles represented a major oil company in litigation resulting from the cratering of an oil well into an underlying salt mine in southwest Louisiana. Charles had primary responsibility for defense of the financial and business interruption claims of the salt mining company whose mine was destroyed.
    • Charles represented a foreign shipyard defendant in litigation arising from the capsizing and sinking of a semi-submersible Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) which resulted in more than 80 deaths and loss of the rig.
    • Charles represented a defendant in a case arising from a gas explosion aboard a MODU which resulted in personal injuries, property damage and business interruption claims.
    • Charles represented a drilling and workover company in several Jones Act, General Maritime Law and related claims arising from accidents and explosions on inland drilling barges.
    • Charles represented a pressure relief valve manufacturer in a major class action and other related litigation arising from the explosion of a North Louisiana chemical plant. The explosion resulted in deaths, injuries, damage to homes and businesses, evacuation of the town adjacent to the plant, and litigation which extended over several years.
    • Charles represented a large paper and forest products manufacturer in asbestos litigation and related matters.
    • Charles represented a large chemical manufacturing company with respect to numerous personal injury and death claims and with respect to numerous class action and mass tort claims arising out of an explosion in one of the company's plants. The representation also involved numerous ancillary contractual, insurance coverage, property damage and business interruption claims.
    • Charles represented an alleged insurer of a dietary supplement manufacturer in a case in the Northern District of Texas. The case resulted in a successful motion for summary judgment on insurance coverage issues.
    • Charles represented an excess insurer in a mass tort claim arising from a chemical plant chlorine release. The case was resolved without payment by his client.
    • Charles represented an environmental remediation company in a series of cases brought by property owners arising from a major tank car train derailment. The case was resolved by successful motions for summary judgment.
    • Charles represented a drilling company in a major well blowout case.
    • Charles represented various insurers in a wide variety of insurance coverage, general liability, personal injury and property damage cases.
    • Charles served as Insurance (Coverage) Group co-liaison counsel in the “FEMA trailer” Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) proceeding.
    • Charles has also handled many maritime and offshore personal injury cases, including Jones Act, General Maritime Law, and OCSLA death and injury cases.
       

Firm Highlights

  • Experience

    Summary Judgment Granted Following Successful Challenge to Plaintiff’s Expert

    Doug Vaughn and Peyton Farve obtained a dismissal of a wrongful death product liability lawsuit against an assembly line manufacturer by successfully moving to exclude the plaintiff's expert who had a perfect track record before this case and thereafter obtaining summary judgment on all claims brought by the family of a worker who died after reaching into moving machinery. The case had been pending in federal court in North Mississippi.
  • Experience

    Successfully Defended Restaurant Operator and Food Distributor Against $50 Million Product Liability Claim

    Anne Medo successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of a restaurant operator and food distributor in a high-stakes product liability matter involving allegations that contaminated chicken nuggets caused a customer to develop severe medical complications. The plaintiff alleged that consumption of chicken nuggets purchased from a national food chain and distributed by Deutsch Kerrigan’s clients resulted in E. coli and Shigella infections, which he claimed led to significant cardiac issues and a stroke. The plaintiff sought $50 million in damages. Prior to trial, Anne moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish the required causal connection between the alleged foodborne illness and his subsequent health conditions. Specifically, the defense highlighted the absence of expert testimony necessary to support the plaintiff’s causation theories. In support of the motion, Anne presented testimony from an infectious disease expert and a cardiologist who opined that the alleged connection between the chicken nuggets and the plaintiff’s severe medical complications could not be established. The court agreed that the plaintiff lacked sufficient evidence to prove causation and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims prior to trial.
  • Insight

    The Betterment Doctrine and Property Damage Claims

  • News

    Deutsch Kerrigan celebrates 100 years of legal leadership across Louisiana and the Gulf Coast

  • News

    Deutsch Kerrigan Recognized in 2026 Chambers USA Rankings

    Deutsch Kerrigan is proud to announce that five of our attorneys and two of our practice areas have been recognized in the 2026 edition of Chambers USA, one of the most prestigious and trusted legal directories in the country. Ranked Practice Areas • Louisiana – Construction (Band 1) • Louisiana – Insurance (Band 2) Ranked Attorneys • Kelly Theard – Construction (Louisiana), Band 1  • Keith Bergeron – Construction (Louisiana), Band 2 • Brian Schaps – Construction (Louisiana), Band 3  • Terrence Brennan – Construction (Louisiana), Senior Statespeople • Frederic Theodore “Ted” Le Clercq – Labor & Employment (Louisiana), Band 4  Chambers USA is widely considered the leading resource for identifying top legal talent. Its rankings are the result of extensive independent research and interviews with clients and legal peers, assessing factors such as legal ability, professional conduct, client service, commercial awareness, and commitment. We are honored to be recognized among the top in our field and remain committed to delivering the high-quality service our clients expect and deserve.
  • Experience

    Burnell Joseph v. Atalco Gramercy, LLC et al., No. 3:23-cv-505, United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

    Bob Kerrigan and Jose Ruiz successfully secured summary judgment dismissal for their client, Velan, Inc., in a complex intentional tort and products liability act involving catastrophic injury. The plaintiff, a precipitation batch tank operator working at the Atalco alumina refinery in Gramercy, Louisiana, suffered severe and debilitating chemical burn injuries to his face, eyes, and body when he was sprayed with caustic liquor while working underneath a tank at the refinery. He claimed that the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank was leaking, which allowed the tank to become filled with liquor after it had been previously verified as empty. He filed suit against Velan, Inc., the manufacturer of the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank, alleging that the valve was unreasonable dangerous in accordance with the Louisiana Products Liability Act. He also filed an intentional tort claim against his employer, Atalco Gramercy, LLC, alleging that Atalco knew the valve was leaking and continued to force employees to work underneath the tank. He claimed that under these conditions, an incident such as his was substantially certain to occur. Following the close of discovery, Velan moved for summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims was appropriate because: (1) the plaintiff’s injuries were a result of Atalco’s misuse of the valve; (2) the plaintiff lacked the expert testimony needed to prove his theory of liability under the Louisiana Product’s Liability Act; (3) the Velan valve at issue was not unreasonably dangerous as defined by the Louisiana Products Liability Act; and (4) the plaintiff was unable to prove proximate causation needed to establish his case of liability against Velan. The Hon. Brian Jackson found that under the undisputed facts presented by Velan, summary judgment was appropriate and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against it, with prejudice.
  • Insight

    New Tech Changing Consent Laws?

  • News

    Karina Shareen Named 2026 Top Young Lawyer by Louisiana State Bar Association

  • Insight

    No Mercy for Employers in Louisiana Supreme Court’s Recent Magill Decision

    In its recent per curiam opinion, Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska[1], the Louisiana Supreme Court has foreclosed a routine defense strategy to shield employers from direct negligence claims. The high court has extended their 2022 decision in Martin v. Thomas[2], and now allows plaintiffs to pursue direct negligence claims against an employer despite the employer’s stipulation that its employee was in the course-and-scope of employment and caused the accident. Essentially, employers who fail to implement better employment practices will permit plaintiffs to ramp up potential exposure with evidence, if such exists, that heretofore they were routinely barred from introducing at trial. The Supreme Court’s Magill holding should encourage employers to update where needed their policies and procedures pertaining to hiring, training, supervising, and entrusting duties and property to employees, not only for the safety of their employees and customers in this state, but also eliminate employer’s exposure to direct negligence claims. Prior to Martin, a litigation strategy had taken shape where employers stipulated to 1) an employee being in course-and-scope of employment at the time of the accident, 2) that the employee was at fault for the accident being caused, or 3) both. By stipulating these facts, employers were largely able to exclude evidence of any direct negligence on part of the employer and/or narrow the scope of trial to only a contest of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Supreme Court in Martin held that despite an employer admitting their employee was in course and scope when the accident occurred, plaintiffs could pursue direct negligence claims against the employer—as the issue of liability had not been admitted. Accordingly, employers found success by admitting both course and scope and liability—as seen in the Western District of Louisiana’s holding in Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona[3]. In Ferguson, the defendants stipulated that their employee was acting in course-and-scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. Due to the employer’s stipulation of fault, Judge Wicks of the Western District of Louisiana held that Martin did not apply and that plaintiffs could not pursue direct negligence claims. In Magill, the Louisiana Supreme Court provided scarce reasoning for their decision. The high court simply affirmed the District Court’s expansion of the holding in Martin and that the employer’s reliance on the Western District’s Ferguson holding was a misapplication of Louisiana law. The Supreme Court also cited the decision in Tardo v. Farrell.[4] where the Fifth Circuit held that even if an employer and employee stipulate to course and scope and fault, those admissions do not eliminate direct-negligence claims because those claims remain separate issues for the trier of fact. The Fifth Circuit notably stated, “the societal decisions as to who actually pays does not change the manner of assessing fault to all parties as required by law.” This statement raises concern, as plaintiffs may now attempt to challenge employer stipulations that historically narrowed trials. The Supreme Court did not explain its reliance on Tardo, so future litigation will likely clarify the decision’s full impact. Under Magill, plaintiffs are permitted to pursue direct negligence claims against the employer despite the employer admitting that their employee was acting in course and scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. The full effect of the Supreme Court’s decision remains to be seen. In praxis, Magill will permit plaintiffs to put on evidence of direct negligence by an employer in front of a jury who cannot assign fault—as fault has already been stipulated to by the defendants. Employers now face the practical risk that plaintiffs will encourage juries to increase damages as a form of punishment against an employer that admits fault but contests the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. Employers should use this moment to rigorously review and strengthen policies and procedures related to hiring and training in order to limit exposure when plaintiffs assert direct-negligence claims.  [1] Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska, 2025-00892 (La. 11/12/25) [2] Martin v. Thomas, 21-01490 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 238 [3] Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, 17-1570, 2023 WL 173413 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023) [4] Tardo v. Ferrell, 25-123 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/25), 2025 WL 1516837 (unpublished).
  • Insight

    Navigating Louisiana’s New Litigation Landscape: Critical Updates for Insurance Companies