An East Baton Rouge court last week disqualified a New Orleans law firm from representing the Louisiana Board of Pardons as a result of conflict-of-interest allegations in an ongoing legal dispute over an effort to grant clemency to death-row inmates.
The decision by 19th Judicial District Judge Richard Moore on Oct. 19 disqualified the Sher Garner law firm for not having a valid attorney-client contract to represent the board and having a conflict of interest because it represented Attorney General Jeff Landry while representing the board, according to attorney Soren Gisleson. Gisleson represents anti-death penalty plaintiffs who want to see the Board of Pardons conduct clemency hearings for scores of death-row inmates.
A series of state lawsuits against the Board of Pardons & Committee on Parole followed Gov. John Bel Edwards’ decision earlier this year to call on the board to hold clemency hearings for 55 inmates. Edwards, a Democrat, will leave office in January. Republican Attorney General Jeff Landry, who is now the governor-elect, filed a lawsuit in September against the board, contending that the board improperly waived rules and timelines as the governor pressed the board to move forward with the clemency hearings.
“The court must ensure our clemency process advances in a legal and transparent way,” Landry said in a prepared statement. “The victims of Willie Tart, Larry Roy and other murderers deserve truth, transparency and justice; I am fighting to deliver that for them.”
But capital punishment critics later responded with lawsuits of their own, accusing the board at its Sept. 29 meeting of ignoring a directive by the governor to conduct hearings on 55 clemency applications from death-row inmates and violations of the state’s open-meetings law.
One lawsuit brought by death penalty opponent Brett Malone alleges that Landry called on the board to appoint Landry’s own Sher Garner attorneys to represent board interests. Ultimately, the board agreed to a settlement with law-enforcement petitioners to hold only limited administrative reviews on some of the clemency requests, according to court records in the Malone case.
“Unfortunately, this litigation (by Malone and others) is necessary to correct Attorney General Jeff Landry’s unconstitutional meddling with the pardon board,” Gisleson told the Louisiana Record in an email.
Landry’s actions led the pardon board to stop complying with Edwards’ directive and instead to hold only 20 administrative reviews, he said. The other 35 applications were denied any hearing or administrative review, according to Gisleson.
In addition, no notice related to the settlement agreement was placed on the board’s public agenda at the time, he said.
“This means that the public had no idea what the settlement meant or its terms at the meeting,” Gisleson said. “The settlement agreement was not provided to the public at the meeting and its terms were not discussed when it was in public session.”
Sister Helen Prejean, a Catholic nun and anti-death-penalty activist, filed a related lawsuit earlier this month in the 19th Judicial District Court that calls on the court to void the pardon board’s actions on Sept. 29.
“Louisiana law clearly provides that these violations should result in nullifying the pardon board’s vote to approve the settlement and that the court should order the board to properly notice these issues again for any future meeting and allow public comment before voting to approve any settlement agreement that materially alters Gov. Edwards’ mandate to the board to conduct clemency hearings,” Gisleson said.
Francis Abbott, executive director of the state Board of Pardons, said he was unable to comment on the ongoing litigation