State Supreme Court Justice Jefferson Hughes has filed a lawsuit against the executive director of Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse Watch, alleging that she defamed him in a 2019 letter to the editor she authored in The Advocate newspaper.
The defamation suit, which was filed in Baker City Court in East Baton Rouge Parish on Sept. 4, is similar to another lawsuit Hughes filed against The Advocate in July. That litigation targeted stories published last year about investigations in Hughes’ actions as a district judge in a 20-year-old child custody case.
The Sept. 3, 2019, letter to the editor authored by Lana Venable said state judicial misconduct investigations have lacked needed transparency. But Hughes’ lawsuit focuses on a single sentence: “Investigations began while he (Hughes) was still serving as state judge in Livingston Parish through his election of the Supreme Court – twice.”
The complaint calls the statement false because the probes into Hughes’ actions ended in 2004, with no discipline given.
“Defendant’s statement that investigations continued ‘through his election to the Supreme Court – twice’ was thus clearly made with knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, hence with ‘actual malice’ …” the lawsuit says.
Venable and her Baton Rouge attorney, David Bienvenu, declined to comment about the defamation lawsuit, which was directed against Venable in her personal capacity and not as the head of the group that highlights abuses in the state’s civil justice system.
Jerry Raehal, executive director of the Louisiana Press Association, puts such lawsuits in the category of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP), since they tend to dissuade citizens from speaking out on issues of public interest.
“Any time a public official files suit against someone in her or his citizen capacity based on a letter to the editor regarding matters of public interest, it creates a chilling effect on freedom of speech,” Raehal said in an email to the Louisiana Record. “We believe it falls under SLAPP.”
Hughes’ complaint contends that he is entitled to a damages award for the statement he says harmed his credibility and integrity. Venable should pay reasonable damages and equitable relief, including judicial interest and all costs of the legal proceedings, the complaint states.
The letter to the editor focused on Hughes’ judicial history as evidence of the state’s lack of transparency in its justice system.
“Louisiana’s lack of judicial transparency, combined with several factors that make our state an outlier, helped cement our long-standing reputation as having one of the worst legal climates in the country,” Venable said in the letter.