The Louisiana Supreme Court has approved rule changes requiring judges who are convicted of crimes or who resign during the course of judicial discipline proceedings to foot the bill for investigation and court costs.
The Nov. 22 announcement came as a result of the high court’s ongoing scrutiny of rule changes needed to increase transparency of proceedings before the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, according to the court.
In the unanimous Supreme Court decision, judges who are charged or convicted of crimes that bear on their fitness to serve on the bench may be forced to repay the public funds used to appoint other judges to perform their duties during suspensions pending the disposition of discipline proceedings.
Chief Justice John Weimer
| Louisiana Supreme Court
In addition, judges who resign during the course of public disciplinary proceedings may be required to refund the cost of the judiciary panel’s investigations and legal actions.
According to the new rules, the Judiciary Commission can also direct hearing officers to expedite cases involving potential criminal conduct.
Lana Sonnier Venable, executive director of Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse Watch, noted that the rule changes come as the American Tort Reform Association designated Louisiana No. 6 on its 2021 list of Judicial Hellholes in the United States.
“This marks the 12th year jurisdictions in Louisiana have been named among the most unjust local courts and state civil justice systems in the country,” Venable said in an email to the Louisiana Record. “… While new rules being considered by the Louisiana Supreme Court are encouraging, they are only the beginning in addressing judicial misconduct in the state. Clearly, there is much more to be done to improve Louisiana’s legal climate.”
Louisiana Chief Justice John Weimer noted that the rule changes will better protect taxpayers and make sure that investigations into questionable actions by judges will be dealt with more efficiently.
“These changes ensure that judges who are convicted of crimes or who resign or retire in the late stages of judicial discipline proceedings, sometimes to avoid the imposition of public discipline by this court, may be held accountable for the costs incurred as a result of their actions and that such costs are not ultimately borne by the taxpayers of this state,” Weimer said in a prepared statement.
The Supreme Court order indicates that while pleadings, orders and evidence in Judicial Commission cases will be a matter of public record, internal investigative reports and correspondence will remain confidential.
“Once the commission files a notice of hearing .. and the respondent judge either files an answer or the time for filing an answer has expired, proceedings before the Judicial Commission and its hearing officers in the matter shall be open to the public,” the high court’s order says.