Portrait of Melissa M. Lessell

Melissa M. Lessell

Partner

Portrait of Melissa M. Lessell
  • Overview
  • Experience
  • Insights
  • Events
  • News
mlessell@deutschkerrigan.com
New Orleans, LA — 504 593 0689
Download my vCard

Melissa Lessell focuses her practice on professional liability and education-related matters.

Professional Liability
Melissa’s professional liability practice encompasses a range of services, including legal malpractice, risk management, and responses to ethics and disciplinary actions. A significant portion of her work involves providing disciplinary defense and malpractice support for lawyers. She assists attorneys in navigating allegations of misconduct and guides them through ethics investigations while also defending them in litigation and before disciplinary boards.

Melissa supports mental health professionals and healthcare providers as they navigate licensing board issues. She represents clients facing misconduct allegations, ensuring they are well-prepared for proceedings and guiding them through ethics investigations and disciplinary actions. Additionally, she handles responses to subpoena requests issued by courts or government agencies.

In addition to her work in the legal and healthcare sectors, Melissa represents various other professionals in liability matters, including accountants, insurance agents, brokers, title agents, and real estate agents.

Education
Melissa partners with schools, charter management organizations, and other educational institutions to provide a comprehensive, one-stop shop for their legal needs. She addresses a wide range of employment-related questions, troubleshoots complex HR issues like EEOC matters and ADA accommodations, and offers risk management services to ensure appropriate policies and best practices are in place. When litigation arises, she defends her clients in employee-based cases such as discrimination and wrongful termination, as well as school-based issues involving IEPs, premises liability, campus safety, and sexual assault or molestation.

Employment Law
Melissa also handles employment-related issues for various companies, providing advice on matters involving the EEOC, NLRB, and general employment concerns. She assists businesses in navigating complex employment regulations, ensuring compliance with federal and state laws, and addressing workplace disputes.

Melissa regularly writes and presents on ethics, legal malpractice, and professional responsibility. She served as a Committee Member of the American Bar Association (ABA) National Standing Committee on Lawyers Professional Liability for eight years and has participated in several committees for the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility. Locally, she is an ad hoc member of the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct Committee, the Professional Liability Insurance Committee, and the Louisiana Bar Foundation. Melissa is also the Co-Director of the Tulane Trial Advocacy Program, where she shares her experience as a trial lawyer, teaching students the skills necessary for effective courtroom advocacy. Additionally, she teaches the Civil Litigation Intersession Bootcamp at Tulane University Law School, further demonstrating her commitment to educating the next generation of legal professionals.

Recognized in professional liability and legal malpractice defense by local, regional, and national directories and publications, Melissa has been selected by her peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® for Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants. She is recognized as a Louisiana Super Lawyer® and has been named by New Orleans Magazine as one of their "Top Lawyers" for Professional Liability and Insurance Defense. In 2021, Inside New Orleans named Melissa a “Favorite Elite Lawyer.”

    • Tulane University School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 2009)
    • University of California San Diego (B.A., 2005)
    • Tulane University School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 2009)
    • University of California San Diego (B.A., 2005)
    • All Louisiana State Courts
    • All Louisiana Federal Courts
    • The Supreme Court of the United States
    • All Louisiana State Courts
    • All Louisiana Federal Courts
    • The Supreme Court of the United States
    • American Bar Association (ABA)
      • Special Advisor of the Standing Committee on Lawyers' Professional Liability, 2024
      • Standing Committee on Lawyers' Professional Liability, Member, 2018-2021
      • Young Lawyers Division Liaison to the Standing Committee on Lawyers' Professional Liability, 2016-2018
      • Editor of the Young Lawyers Division Ethics and Professional Responsibility Newsletter, 2015-2017
      • Young Lawyers Division, Vice Chair of the Committee of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, 2015-2016
      • Tort, Trial and Insurance Practice Section Outreach to Young Lawyer's Committee, 2015-2016
      • Ex Officio Member of the Task Force on Outreach to Young Lawyers, 2014-2015
      • Professional Liability Insurance General Committee, Vice-Chair
      • Center for Professional Responsibility – CLE Committee, 2021- present
    • Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers
    • Tulane University Trial Advocacy Program
      • Adjunct Professor, 2020-present
      • Co-Director
    • Federal Bar Association
    • Louisiana State Bar Association
      • Rules of Professional Conduct Committee
      • Insurance Committee
    • Louisiana Bar Foundation
      • Grants Committee Member
    • New Orleans Bar Association
      • Frequent CLE speaker
    • Bar & Grille Committee Member, 2015-2016
    • American Bar Association (ABA)
      • Special Advisor of the Standing Committee on Lawyers' Professional Liability, 2024
      • Standing Committee on Lawyers' Professional Liability, Member, 2018-2021
      • Young Lawyers Division Liaison to the Standing Committee on Lawyers' Professional Liability, 2016-2018
      • Editor of the Young Lawyers Division Ethics and Professional Responsibility Newsletter, 2015-2017
      • Young Lawyers Division, Vice Chair of the Committee of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, 2015-2016
      • Tort, Trial and Insurance Practice Section Outreach to Young Lawyer's Committee, 2015-2016
      • Ex Officio Member of the Task Force on Outreach to Young Lawyers, 2014-2015
      • Professional Liability Insurance General Committee, Vice-Chair
      • Center for Professional Responsibility – CLE Committee, 2021- present
    • Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers
    • Tulane University Trial Advocacy Program
      • Adjunct Professor, 2020-present
      • Co-Director
    • Federal Bar Association
    • Louisiana State Bar Association
      • Rules of Professional Conduct Committee
      • Insurance Committee
    • Louisiana Bar Foundation
      • Grants Committee Member
    • New Orleans Bar Association
      • Frequent CLE speaker
    • Bar & Grille Committee Member, 2015-2016
    • AV Preeminent Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rating™
    • Louisiana Super Lawyers® (2024-present)
    • The Best Lawyers in America® (2020-present)
    • New Orleans CityBusiness
      • "Leaders in Law" (2025)
      • “Ones to Watch: Banking” (2015)
    • Inside New Orleans Readers’ Favorite Elite Lawyer (2021)
    • New Orleans Magazine’s "Top Lawyers" (2018-present)
    • New Orleans Magazine’s "Top Women in Law" (2025)
    • New Orleans CityBusiness “Ones to Watch: Banking” (2015)
    • Louisiana Super Lawyers® “Rising Star” (2017-2024)
    • AV Preeminent Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rating™
    • Louisiana Super Lawyers® (2024-present)
    • The Best Lawyers in America® (2020-present)
    • New Orleans CityBusiness
      • "Leaders in Law" (2025)
      • “Ones to Watch: Banking” (2015)
    • Inside New Orleans Readers’ Favorite Elite Lawyer (2021)
    • New Orleans Magazine’s "Top Lawyers" (2018-present)
    • New Orleans Magazine’s "Top Women in Law" (2025)
    • New Orleans CityBusiness “Ones to Watch: Banking” (2015)
    • Louisiana Super Lawyers® “Rising Star” (2017-2024)
    • The Dream, US
      • Selection Committee Member
    • Louisiana SPCA
      • Advocacy Committee
      • Development Committee
    • The Dream, US
      • Selection Committee Member
    • Louisiana SPCA
      • Advocacy Committee
      • Development Committee

Firm Highlights

  • 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.
  • Insight

    New Tech Changing Consent Laws?

  • 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).
  • 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.
  • Insight

    The Betterment Doctrine and Property Damage Claims

  • 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.
  • News

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

  • Insight

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

  • 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.