[00:00:03]
[CLE Training]
WELL, I'VE BEEN TOLD TO START OVER.SO IF YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD THIS FIELD, ONCE I APOLOGIZE, MY NAME IS SUSAN CAM BACK.
I'M A DEPUTY DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL WITH THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL.
UM, UH, I, BEFORE I WORKED AT THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, WHICH HAS BEEN FOR APPROXIMATELY THE LAST EIGHT YEARS, I WORKED AS A MISDEMEANOR PROSECUTOR IN BATON ROUGE CITY COURT.
UM, I DID THAT FOR APPROXIMATELY A YEAR AND A HALF.
AND BEFORE THAT, I WORKED FOR OVER 20 YEARS WITH THE LOUISIANA FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL WHILE WORKING AT THE LOUISIANA FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL.
I ALSO SERVED AS AN ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE AT LSU LAW SCHOOL.
I DID THAT FOR APPROXIMATELY 10 YEARS, BUT THAT IS A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON WHO I AM.
THE INTENTION FOR TODAY IS TO SPEAK FOR AN HOUR ON ETHICS.
AND THEN WE WILL GO STRAIGHT INTO AN HOUR OF PROFESSIONALISM.
BOTH TOPICS NECESSARILY OVERLAP EACH OTHER.
ALTHOUGH THERE ARE DIFFERENT PRESENTATIONS PLANNED FOR EACH ONE.
UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T HAVE ANY LIVE MEMBERS IN THE AUDIENCE.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO BE HEARING A LOT OF ME TALKING THERE.
WON'T BE THE NORMAL BACK AND FORTH THAT I ENJOY WHEN I DO DO PRESENTATIONS.
AND FOR THE INABILITY TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS BEFORE I BEGIN ANY PRESENTATION, I'D LIKE TO DO A FEW DISCLAIMERS.
THE FIRST DISCLAIMER, IS THAT THE THOUGHTS THAT I'M PRESENTING TODAY ARE MY OWN, I'M APPEARING HERE AS A MEMBER OF THE BAR, AND I'M GIVING YOU MY IMPRESSIONS OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND THE JURISPRUDENCE INTERPRETING THEM.
UM, I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT THE MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TODAY WERE PREPARED BY ME AND CIRCULATED AT MY REQUEST.
AND FOR THAT REASON, IF THERE'S ANY TYPE OF GRAPHICAL ERRORS OR MISTAKES, YOU HAVE ONLY ME TO BLAME, BUT HOPEFULLY THEY WILL PROVIDE YOU SOME RESOURCES.
GENERALLY, WHEN I SPEAK TO A LIVE AUDIENCE, MY MATERIALS OFFER A BIT OF A FRAMEWORK.
THEY'RE THERE FOR YOU TO REFERENCE.
IF THERE'S SOMETHING I TALK ABOUT THAT PERHAPS YOU DIDN'T GET, OR YOU WANTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, BUT I'M GOING TO GO WHERE THE CONVERSATION LENDS ITSELF.
AND AGAIN, I GUESS SINCE I'M THE ONLY ONE ENGAGED IN THE CONVERSATION WILL BE WHERE I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING THE TALK IN ANY, UH, ANY TIME THAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH A DISCIPLINARY COMPLAINT OR A MATTER THAT YOU'RE EVALUATING, OR AT LEAST ANY TIME THAT I'M DEALING WITH IT.
I ALWAYS THINK ABOUT, UM, THREE CONSIDERATIONS.
I ASSESS ANY OF THE LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE TO BE RESOLVED.
AND THEN I FIND MYSELF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER I'M DEALING WITH A LACK OF ABILITY, A LACK OF SKILL, WHETHER I'M DEALING WITH A LACK OF WORK ETHIC, UM, THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH A LACK OF DILIGENCE AND THE REPRESENTATION OF A CLIENT, OR AM I DEALING WITH A LACK OF, UM, MORAL BEHAVIOR, UH, A DISHONEST MATTER.
AND I THINK AS I TALK TODAY, IF YOU KIND OF KEEP THOSE THREE FACTORS IN MIND, THOSE ARE PARTS OF THE ASSESSMENT BECAUSE DEPENDING ON HOW YOU ASSESS A DISCIPLINARY COMPLAINT, WHETHER YOU THINK YOU'RE DEALING WITH A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, YOU'RE GOING TO, IF IT'S A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT A WAY TO TRY AND EDUCATE THE ATTORNEY SO THAT THEY CAN IMPROVE THEIR WORK IN THE FUTURE.
IF YOU'RE DEALING WITH A LACK OF WORK ETHIC, UM, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFICULT TO TEACH, BUT YOU CAN STILL TRY AND OFFER SOME SORT OF ENCOURAGEMENT TO PERHAPS, UM, TO THE ATTORNEYS.
SO THEY MIGHT CONSIDER THEIR BEHAVIOR AND HOW THEY COULD AGAIN, IMPROVE IT IN THE FUTURE.
WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH A LACK OF HONESTY OR A LACK OF, UM, OF MORAL CHARACTER, THEN YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY, I THINK EVERYONE WOULD AGREE DEALING WITH SOMETHING THAT'S MUCH MORE SERIOUS.
AND IT'S IN THOSE CASES, GENERALLY THAT YOU SEE THE IMPOSITION, ASSUMING THERE'S A FINDING OF DISCIPLINARY MISCONDUCT THAT YOU SEE THE IMPOSITION OF A, UM, A HARSHER SANCTION IMPOSED UPON ATTORNEY, AN ATTORNEY AT THE COMPLETION OF THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS WITH THAT INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION BEING SHARED WITH YOU.
I THINK GENERALLY SPEAKING, THERE ARE THREE SOURCES OF LAW THAT GOVERN ETHICS PRACTICE IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.
THE FIRST SOURCE OF LAW, OR IS FOUND IN THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
THOSE ARE ETHICS RULES ARE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO AS ATTORNEYS ENGAGED WITH THE PRACTICE OF LAW.
WHEN YOU READ A DISCIPLINARY CASE, UM, THAT'S ISSUED BY THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT, YOU'LL SEE THEM SITE TO RULE A 1.3 DILIGENCE RULE 1.4, UM, COMMUNICATION WITH A CLIENT.
WELL, 1.2 SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION.
THOSE RULES ARE FOUND IN THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
THE SECOND SOURCE OF LAW IS FOUND IN RULE 19 OF THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT RULES.
I TELL PEOPLE THAT RULE 19 IS SORT OF LIKE OUR CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OR CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
AND IT'S THE GUIDELINES FOR HOW DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATIONS ARE CONDUCTED AND HOW
[00:05:01]
DISCIPLINARY PROSECUTIONS ARE PURSUED.IF YOU ARE AN ATTORNEY WHO IS CHARGED WITH A VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, YOU WANT TO TAKE THE TIME TO FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH RULE 19.
AND THOSE RULES OF PROCESS AND PROCEDURE THERE IS ALSO AVAILABLE A PRACTICE GUIDE FOR ATTORNEYS APPEARING IN A DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING THAT GIVES A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION AS HOW TO GO ABOUT HANDLING, UM, ADDRESSING THOSE FORMAL CHARGES AND WORKING YOUR WAY THROUGH THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS.
SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF ATTORNEYS DON'T KNOW.
AND, AND I WANT TO CLARIFY, THAT'S TRUE, EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT THE PERSON WHO HAS THE CHARGES BROUGHT, YOU MIGHT BE REPRESENTING SOMEONE WITH CHARGES BEFORE IN OUR OFFICE.
ONE THING THAT A LOT OF ATTORNEYS DON'T REALIZE IS THAT NONCOMPLIANCE WITH RULE 19 CAN ALSO LEAD TO A VIOLATION, UM, OR A FINDING OF MISCONDUCT.
AND THERE'S A CASE THAT STANDS FOR THAT PROPOSITION.
IT'S THE IN RE RESPOND TO THE CASE.
I DON'T HAVE A CITATION AVAILABLE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT IN THAT CASE, IT WAS WHERE AN ATTORNEY BROUGHT A LAWSUIT AGAINST SOMEONE WHO HAD FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM WHILE 19 STATES THAT YOU CANNOT DO THAT IT'S IMPROPER AND MR. RESPONDING ULTIMATELY FACE DISCIPLINARY CHARGES FOR THAT VIOLATION.
I CAN ALSO TELL YOU THAT UNDER RULE 19 SECTION 28, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN, MAINTAIN CERTAIN CLIENT RECORDS.
YOU'RE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THESE RECORDS UNDER PROVISION OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ALSO, WHICH I EARLIER DISCUSSED.
AND WHEN I HAVE AN ATTORNEY THAT I'M INVESTIGATING AND I ULTIMATELY PROCEED WITH FORMAL CHARGES, I HAVE ALSO REFERENCED A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A RULE 19 SECTION 28 AS A BASIS FOR SUBSTANTIVE MISCONDUCT.
SO WE NOW KNOW THAT THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ARE KIND OF LIKE OUR CIVIL CODE OR CRIMINAL CODE.
WE KNOW THAT THE, UH, THE RULES FOR LOWER DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT FOUND IN RULE 19 ARE SIMILAR TO OUR CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OR CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, BUT CAN ALSO BE A BASIS FOR ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT.
AND WHAT IS THE THIRD SOURCE OF LAW THAT I REFERENCED? AND THE THIRD SOURCE OF LAW WOULD BE THE JURISPRUDENCE.
MOST OF THE JURISPRUDENCE, UM, IS GOING TO ORIGINATE FROM THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT.
AND IF YOU'RE NOT ALREADY ON THE NOTIFICATION FOR SUPREME COURT DECISIONS AND ORDERS, WHEN THEY'RE ISSUED, I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT'S WEBSITE AND REGISTER FOR THAT SERVICE.
YOU CAN IDENTIFY DISCIPLINARY CASES FAIRLY EASILY, BECAUSE THEY USUALLY ARE PROCEEDED WITH, BY IN REA AND THEN THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT WHO HAS BEEN, UM, CHARGED WITH DISCIPLINARY VIOLATIONS.
UM, BUT THERE'S OTHER JURISPRUDENCE, OR MAYBE I SHOULD SAY THERE'S OTHER OPINION OUT THERE THAT CAN HELP YOU, THAT CAN BE INSTRUCTIVE IN DECIDING NOT ONLY HOW TO DEFEND AGAINST DISCIPLINARY CHARGES, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, HOW TO MAKE A DECISION THAT IS ETHICAL.
WHAT I, YOU KNOW, I'M IN PRACTICE, THE GOAL IS TO NEVER APPEAR BEFORE THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL.
SO WHERE CAN I GO FOR A BIT OF GUIDANCE OR DIRECTION AND WHAT YOU CAN FIND NOT ONLY IN THIS IS THE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE, BUT ALSO AVAILABLE TO YOU, OUR DECISIONS OF OUR REPORTS THAT ARE ISSUED BY HEARING COMMITTEES.
AND THERE ARE ALSO THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT THAT ARE PREPARED AND WRITTEN BY THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD.
NOW, OF COURSE, THESE ARE NOT BINDING IN THE SENSE OF, THEY'RE NOT BINDING LIKE THE DECISIONS OF THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT, BUT THEY'RE VERY INSTRUCTIVE AND RESOURCEFUL.
AND IF YOU TAKE THE TIME TO READ EVEN ONE SUPREME COURT DECISION, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT SPECIFICALLY REFERENCES THAT HEARING COMMITTEE REPORT, UM, EXPRESSLY REFERENCES THAT LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE COURT, UH, LAST SOURCE OF INSTRUCTION THAT CAN BE FOUND IN JURISPRUDENCE REGARDING DISCIPLINARY MATTERS IS IN APPELLATE OPINIONS.
NOW, THIS IS KIND OF A CURIOUS SITUATION BECAUSE REMEMBER, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE THIS.
REMEMBER THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY MATTERS, BUT SOMETIMES APPELLATE COURTS ARE CALLED TO PASS, PASS JUDGMENT ON ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN THE ISSUANCE OF THE DI OR IN THE I'M TRYING TO THINK OF THE CORRECT WORD WHEN PREPARING THE O THEIR OWN OPINIONS WHEN REVIEWING CIVIL AND CRIMINAL MATTERS.
AND I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A FEW EXAMPLES OF WHEN THAT HAPPENS.
[00:10:01]
OF THESE, YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH OTHERS.YOU MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH, LET'S SAY THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND, AND I'M GOING TO SPEAK IN VERY BROAD TERMS HERE, BUT MOST PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH BRADY, WHICH IS THE REVELATION OF EXCULPATORY INFORMATION TO A DEFENDANT SO THAT HE CAN, UM, BEFORE HE PROCEEDS TO TRIAL SO THAT HE CAN PROPERLY DEFEND HIMSELF, UM, BREAKING MATERIAL.
THAT'S A VERY BIG OVER-SIMPLIFICATION.
AND YOU WILL FIND PERHAPS, UM, ON APPEAL OR IN AN APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, A DEFENDANT WILL ASSERT THAT THEY WERE NOT PROVIDED WITH BRADY MATERIAL.
AND SO THERE'LL BE SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE PROSECUTOR'S OBLIGATION AND, UM, WHAT IS THEIR OBLIGATION.
AND WE HAVE SOME RECENT CASES FROM OUR LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT THAT TALKS ABOUT BRADY AND THE ETHICAL VIOLATIONS OF A PROSECUTOR UNDER RULE.
SO THAT CAN BE VERY INSTRUCTIVE TO YOU IN DEALING WITH A DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION OR DISCIPLINARY CHARGES.
IF YOU'RE IN THE POSITION OF A PROSECUTOR, THERE'S SOME OVERLAP THERE.
ANOTHER PLACE WHERE YOU'LL FIND OVERLAP IS YOU WILL SEE SOMETIMES IN A CIVIL PROCEEDING, A MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL, OPPOSING COUNSEL, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THAT'S FILED BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY, UM, FOR LET'S SAY THE PLAINTIFF SEEKS THE DISQUALIFY, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT.
AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, THOSE MOTIONS TO DISQUALIFY ARE BASED ON ALLEGATIONS OF A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN EVALUATING WHETHER THERE IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
THOSE APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS WILL OFTEN DISCUSS THE WOLVES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT THAT GOVERN CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
SO THERE, AGAIN, YOU CAN FIND SOME GUIDANCE IN THOSE CIVIL DECISIONS IN WHETHER OR NOT, UM, OR WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE ACTION FOR YOU TO TAKE ANOTHER EXAMPLE.
AND I THINK I HAD ONE MORE, OH, YOU'LL SEE, UM, MOTIONS TO RECUSE, PERHAPS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR A PARTICULAR DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
AND ONCE AGAIN, THOSE WILL SOMETIMES BE BASED ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND YOU'LL SEE THE COURT IN ITS ANALYSIS, DISCUSSING SOME OF THOSE CONFLICT RULES THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
I'VE GIVEN YOU SOME SOURCES OF, UM, INSTRUCTION, SOME SOURCES OF LAW TO ASSIST YOU WITH MAKING THE RIGHT CHOICES, PERHAPS ADDRESSING A DISCIPLINARY COMPLAINT OR INVESTIGATION YOU RECEIVE, OR EVEN DEFENDING YOURSELF OR A CO A CLIENT IN A DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING.
BUT THIS IS THE BEST TIP OF ALL.
I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU ALL OF THESE RESOURCES THAT I'VE DISCUSSED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE APPELLATE COURT DECISIONS THAT ARE NOT DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS CAN BE LOCATED ON THE BOARD'S WEBSITE.
AND THE BOARD'S WEBSITE IS L A D B.ORG.
AND THERE'S A COMPILATION OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT RULE.
19 HEARING COMMITTEE REPORTS, BOARD REPORTS, AND LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO, UM, THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ON THAT WEBSITE.
YOU CAN ALSO GET ACCESS TO THE LOUISIANA PRACTICE GUIDE OR THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD PRACTICE GUIDE THAT I REFERENCED, WHICH GIVES YOU MORE SPECIFIC, MORE DETAILED INSTRUCTION ON HOW TO PROCEED IF YOU FIND YOURSELF FACING A DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION OR UNFORTUNATELY, A DISCIPLINARY PROSECUTION.
SO IF YOU TAKE ANYTHING ELSE FROM THIS, UM, IF YOU DON'T TAKE ANYTHING ELSE FROM THIS PRESENTATION, TRY TO REMEMBER LA DB.ORG, BECAUSE IT'S A WEALTH OF INFORMATION RIGHT AT YOUR FINGERTIPS, AND IT IS FREE TO ACCESS THE SITE.
WHEN I LAST SPOKE TO, UH, THIS GROUP I'VE SPOKEN BEFORE TO THIS GROUP, UM, ARE ON BEHALF OF THE PRESENTATION THAT EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH PUTS ON.
UM, I SPOKE ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS TO RULE 19.
THEY WERE, UM, AND I SAY, AMENDMENT, I NEED TO BE CLEAR.
UM, BASICALLY THAT WAS, UM, IN 2019 EFFECTIVE MAY OF 2019, THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT REPEALED RULE 19.
YOU REMEMBER JUST TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY, I SPOKE ABOUT HOW RULE 19 IS YOUR OPERATIONS MANUAL FOR DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS.
UM, SINCE THAT TIME COVID HIT THERE, HASN'T BEEN A LOT ONGOING.
AND, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY WE DID NOT GET TOGETHER IN 2020, THOSE RULES THAT WERE NEW THEN HAVE NOW BECOME PART OF PRACTICE.
SO, AS I TALK TODAY, I'LL, I'LL FLAG SOME OF THE CHANGES, BUT I WILL ALSO, UM, I WILL TALK ABOUT THEM, HOW THEY'VE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO PRACTICE.
I'VE GOT TO TAKE A BRIEF MOMENT TO TELL YOU THAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD TO INSTRUCT YOU THAT THE MAGIC BRAISE FOR YOU TO GET CREDIT FOR TODAY'S PRESENTATION IS ALL IN THE FAMILY, ALL IN THE FAMILY.
[00:15:01]
MAKE A NOTE OF IT, WRITE IT DOWN AND YOU'LL NEED YOUR REPORT, THAT TO GET YOUR CREDIT FOR TODAY'S ETHICS PRESENTATION.SO, AS I SAID, WELL, 19 WAS REPEALED IN ITS ENTIRETY AND THEN REENACTED EFFECTIVE.
UM, IN 2019 IN NOVEMBER, THEY, THERE WERE SOME ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS.
AND THEN THERE HAVE BEEN SOME ADDITIONAL CHANGES, NOT ONLY TO RULE 19, BUT TO RULE 30, WHICH TALKS ABOUT MCLE APPLICATIONS.
AND THEN THERE'VE BEEN SOME VERY RECENT CHANGES TO THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT, WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT ALL OF THOSE.
IF YOU TAKE THE TIME TO REVIEW THE MATERIALS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EMAILED TO YOU, YOU'LL SEE THAT I KIND OF, UM, GO THROUGH SOME, I'VE TAKEN VERY SPECIFIC TOPICS TO TALK ABOUT TODAY.
AND WITH THOSE TOPICS, AS I TALK ABOUT THEM, THERE'S QUITE A FEW FOOTNOTES AND THE FOOTNOTES ARE DELIBERATE AND THEIR PLACEMENT IS DELIBERATE BECAUSE AS I DISCUSSED JURISPRUDENCE OR CHANGES, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU, AS THE PRACTITIONER ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE TERMINOLOGY AND FAMILIAR WITH THE WOLVES OF PROCEDURE, OFTEN RULE 19, RIGHT.
THAT SPEAK TO, UH, SOME OF THE THINGS WE DISCUSS.
SO AS I TALK TODAY, I'M GOING TO TRY AND GET THROUGH AS MUCH OF THE MATERIALS I CAN, BUT I'M GOING TO ALMOST DIGRESS.
AND AS I TALK ABOUT IT, I MAY USE THAT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS SOMETHING WITH YOU.
ONE OF THE THINGS I TALK ABOUT IN THE MATERIALS IS THE REQUIREMENT FROM THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT, THAT ATTORNEYS NOW REGISTER AN EMAIL ADDRESS WITH THE, UM, WITH THEIR REGISTRATION STATEMENT.
YOU KNOW, IT'S SUCH A SIMPLE THING TO BE ASKED TO DO, BUT AS A DISCIPLINARY, UM, INVESTIGATOR AND PROSECUTOR, IT HAS A LOT OF CONSEQUENCES.
UM, IN MY MIND, IT TRIGGERS A LOT OF THINGS FOR ME AS SOMEONE KIND OF IN THE BUSINESS.
AND I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO YOU TO TALK ABOUT, UM, WHAT'S ON MY MIND.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IMMEDIATELY COMES TO MIND IS, UM, WHEN AN ATTORNEY FAILED TO RESPOND TO A DISCIPLINARY COMPLAINT AND OR THEY CHOSE TO COOPERATE WITH A DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION.
NOW, EVERY ATTORNEY MAY HAVE, AND I'M TALKING ABOUT, UM, DEPUTY DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, EVERY DEPUTY DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL MAY VIEW IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT I SEE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A FAILURE TO RESPOND.
UM, WHAT I SEE THE DISTINCTION AS BEING BETWEEN A FAILURE TO RESPOND AND A FAILURE TO COOPERATE, A FAILURE TO RESPOND IS WHEN I SEND YOU NOTICE OF A COMPLAINT, A REQUEST FOR AN INITIAL RESPONSE AND A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, AND UNDER THE RULES OF THE RULES RULE 19, I'M REQUIRED TO SEND THAT TO THE PRIMARY ADDRESS YOU HAVE REGISTERED WITH THE LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION.
I SEND THAT OUT RIGHT? AND I'M TRACKING IT.
I HAVE, I SENT IT CERTIFIED MAIL.
I'M FOLLOWING USP S.COM TRACKING.
AND I CAN SEE THAT YOU GOT IT AND YOU DON'T WRITE ME.
YOU DON'T PROVIDE ME WITH ME AS A DEPUTY DISCIPLINARY COUNCIL WITH YOUR INITIAL RESPONSE.
TO ME, THAT'S FAILING TO RESPOND.
NOW, SOMETIMES PEOPLE WILL RESPOND AND THEIR RESPONSE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE IT BEING FLIPPANT.
CAUSE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF HUMOR IN EVERYTHING, ALL OF US DO, BUT SOMETIMES THEY'LL RESPOND AND THEIR RESPONSE WILL BE, I'M NOT GOING TO RESPOND TO YOU.
SO TECHNICALLY I HAVE A RESPONSE, RIGHT? BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THAT WAS A NON-RESPONSIVE RESPONSE.
YOU REMEMBER THAT IN LAW SCHOOL, WHEN YOU WERE DOING MOOT COURT TRAINING AND ONE OF THE OBJECTIONS, OBJECTION, NON-RESPONSIVE THAT TO ME IS WHERE WE GET INTO THE LEVEL OF FAILURE TO COOPERATE.
NOW, THE SUPREME COURT IS HAVING YOU PROVIDE AN EMAIL ADDRESS.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO IS WE WILL SEND THAT NOTICE TECHNICALLY UNDER RULE 19, THAT'S THE ONLY NOTICE WE'RE REQUIRED TO GIVE, RIGHT? WE'RE GIVING YOU YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T SUBMIT AN INITIAL RESPONSE? I'M GOING TO TELL YOU HOW I VIEW IT.
IF YOU DO NOT SUBMIT AN INITIAL RESPONSE TO ME, I SEE IT AS ME HAVING SEVERAL OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO ME.
ONE OF THE OPTIONS IS I GO AHEAD AND I CONDUCT MY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE COMPLAINT, AND I CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL THAT THE MATTER BE CLOSED WITHOUT YOU SUBMITTING AN INITIAL RESPONSE, THAT OPTION IS AVAILABLE.
BUT I CAN TELL YOU FOR MYSELF, THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE I DON'T.
UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR SOMEONE NOT TO SUBMIT, NOT TO RESPOND TO A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM OUR OFFICE.
THE RULE SAYS THAT YOU'RE REQUIRED YOU, UH, KNOWING FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A REASONABLE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION IS A VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
AND I HAVE PROSECUTED IT, EVEN IF THE UNDERLYING COMPLAINT HAS NO INDEPENDENT
[00:20:01]
MERIT AND I'VE PROSECUTED IT SUCCESSFULLY, BUT TO ESTABLISH KNOWING I'M GOING TO TAKE IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.AND MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN IN MY INVENTORY WHO WERE NON-RESPONSIVE, MOST OF THE PEOPLE WILL RECEIVE WHAT I CALL A COURTESY REQUEST.
AND I PUT IN ALL CAPS IN BOWLS, SECOND REQUEST FOR AN INITIAL RESPONSE, THAT SECOND REQUEST WILL BE SET TO EVERY ADDRESS THAT I HAVE AVAILABLE FOR YOU REGISTERED WITH THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION.
IF I HAVE AN INDEPENDENT, AN INDEPENDENT ADDRESS, I'VE FOUND PERHAPS ON A PLEADING IN, UM, THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED AS PART OF THE COMPLAINT, AND NOW I'M GOING TO SEND IT TO YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TOO.
AND I'M WATCHING TO SEE WHETHER ANY OF THAT CORRESPONDENCE HAS RETURNED TO OUR OFFICE.
AS UNDELIVERED, PERHAPS WE'LL GET NOTICE OF A NEW ADDRESS, AFFORDING A DRESS WITH EMAIL.
WE'RE GOING TO PUT A DELIVERY RECEIPT AND A READ RECEIPT.
AND SO NOW I'M TRYING EVERYTHING I CAN TO SEE.
IF YOU WILL SUBMIT A RESPONSE, OUR OFFICE WANTS A RESPONSE FROM YOU.
WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT YOUR POSITION IS.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF DISCIPLINARY COMPLAINTS, PROBABLY SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 85 TO 90% ULTIMATELY ENDED UP BEING CLOSED.
BUT IT'S DIFFICULT TO CLOSE A COMPLAINT IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR POSITION IS, WE'RE LOOKING TO YOU TO EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING ON.
WHY IS THIS CLIENT UPSET? WHY IS OPPOSING COUNSEL UPSET? WHY IS THE JUDGE UPSET? WHY IS THIS ARTICLE IN THE NEWSPAPER? IF YOU DON'T RESPOND TO A SECOND COURTESY REQUEST FOR AN INITIAL RESPONSE, THERE ARE STILL OTHER STEPS THAT CAN BE TAKEN.
YOU CAN BE PERSONALLY SERVED WITH A SUBPOENA DUCES, TAKE THEM TO SUBMIT AN INITIAL RESPONSE TO THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL.
YOU COULD BE PERSONALLY SERVED WITH A SUBPOENA TO APPEAR FOR A SWORN STATEMENT.
AND ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT WOULD HAPPEN WHEN YOU SHOW UP AT THE PERSON AT THE SWORN STATEMENT IS YOU WILL BE TALKING WITH DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL EXPLAINING WHY YOU DID NOT SUBMIT AN INITIAL RESPONSE DESPITE HAVING RECEIVED NOTICE MORE THAN ONCE.
THERE IS AT LEAST ONE CASE THAT I'M AWARE OF WHERE A PARTY WAS REFUSING TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION.
AND I'M SORRY, I DON'T REMEMBER THE CASE NAME.
IT WAS NOT MY CASE, BUT THE COURT ISSUED AN INTERIM SUSPENSION, PLACED THE ATTORNEY TO INTERIM SUSPENSION UNTIL THEY SUBMITTED AN INITIAL RESPONSE TO THE DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATION.
AND OF COURSE YOU COULD ALSO FACE DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AND EFFECTIVELY WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING IS REMEMBER DISCIPLINARY CHARGES.
WHEN THEY'RE BROUGHT THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
THEREFORE, IT'S MY OBLIGATION AS DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL TO PROVE A VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
AND I AM DOCUMENTING ALL OF THESE EFFORTS IN ORDER TO SHOW THE COURT, THE EFFORTS THAT WERE MADE TO PROVIDE THE ATTORNEY, NOT JUST WITH CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, BUT WITH ACTUAL NOTICE.
SO THEY COULD PRESENT THEIR DEFENSE TO THE ALLEGATIONS BEING MADE AGAINST THEM BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOW BY THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL.
AND ALL OF THAT IS PART OF THE EVIDENCE THAT'S PRESENTED TO SHOW THAT THE ATTORNEY FAILED TO RESPOND.
AND IN THE EXAMPLE I GAVE YOU FAILED TO COOPERATE WITH THE LITIGATION.
WE TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE.
UM, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PROFESSIONALISM, WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT, UM, RESPONDING TO ANOTHER PARTY.
BUT I THINK THAT, UH, IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING, I DISCUSS IT IN THE MATERIALS THAT THE COURT DOES NOT LOOK KINDLY ON PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT RESPONDING AND COOPERATING WITH DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATIONS, IT DRAGS OUT THE PROCESS.
IT USES FUNDS THAT THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL DOES NOT HAVE, AND IT SHOWS DISRESPECT TO THE PRACTICE, TO THE PROFESSION.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY TO THE COURT AND JUSTICE, QUITE AN IN PARTICULAR HAS BEEN EXTREMELY VOCAL ABOUT THIS AND HIS CONCURRENCES, UM, AND SOME DESCENTS.
AND I HAVE QUOTED HIM IN THE MATERIALS THAT YOU'VE BEEN PROVIDED.
AND I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO TAKE THE TIME TO READ SOME OF HIS COMMENTARY.
THERE'S ANOTHER MATTER WE WERE TALKING ABOUT REGISTERING THE EMAIL ADDRESS, AND THERE'S ANOTHER THING THAT CAME TO MY MIND WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, I SAID THERE WERE CERTAIN THINGS WITH THIS NEW REQUIREMENT THAT AS A DEPUTY DISCIPLINARY COUNCIL, IT CAUSES ME, UM, PAUSE TO THINK, YOU KNOW, UM, WITH YOUR BEFORE, WHEN YOU DID YOUR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION, IF YOU WERE MISSING HOURS, YOU WOULD GET A LETTER IN THE MAIL, LIKE A COURTESY WARNING LETTER FROM THE STATE BAR, FROM THE MCLA OFFICE.
I SHOULD SAY, TELLING YOU THAT LOOK YOU'RE SHORT, YOU ONLY HAVE SO MUCH TIME.
YOU NEED TO GET YOUR ORDER, YOUR HOURS IN.
UM, YOU NEED TO GET YOUR HOURS AND CHECK FOR YOUR ANNUAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE MCLA REQUIREMENTS.
THE RULES WERE AMENDED, UM, TO SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE THAT.
NOW YOU WILL NO LONGER RECEIVE THE COURTESY LETTER FROM THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION.
NOW, WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO RECEIVE IS AN EMAIL NOTIFICATION.
[00:25:01]
AND THAT MAY SEEM LIKE NOT LIKE IT'S NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK ABOUT IS A LOT OF TIMES WE HAVE SPAM FILTERS AND THOSE SPAM FILTERS WILL DROP IMPORTANT NOTIFICATIONS IN, YOU KNOW, INTO THE SPAM FILTER.AND WE NEVER SEE THEM AND ATTORNEYS, IF THEY DON'T KNOW THAT THIS CHANGE HAS TAKEN PLACE, THEY WON'T BE WATCHING FOR THAT LETTER.
AND IT MAY SEEM SURPRISING TO YOU, BUT A LOT OF ATTORNEYS, UM, WAIT UNTIL THEY GET THE, WELL, IT'S NOT REALLY A LOT OF ATTORNEYS, BUT A NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS WILL WAIT UNTIL THEY GET THE WARNING.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY WAIT, BUT THEY DELAY MEETING THEIR MA THEIR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNTIL THEY ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO, UNTIL THEY'VE RECEIVED THE WARNING.
AND THEN THEY'LL TAKE SOME ACTION IN LOUISIANA.
IF AN ATTORNEY IS NON-COMPLIANT WITH THEIR PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS, UM, ESPECIALLY LIKE THEIR DUES AND SUCH THE OPPOSITE DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, WE RECEIVED NOTIFICATION FROM THE BAR ASSOCIATION.
IT'S LIKE A LIST OF NAMES OF THE PARTIES WHO ARE, HAVE NOT SUBMITTED THE PROPER REGISTRATION INFORMATION, UM, AND MET THEIR ANNUAL REQUIREMENTS.
AND WE'LL REVIEW THAT LIST TO SEE IF ANY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE IN OUR INVENTORY AND TAKE WHATEVER ACTION IS APPROPRIATE AFTER THAT.
BUT IT'S INTERESTING HOW MANY PEOPLE, UM, THE SAME NAME SEEMED TO COME UP, UM, OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
AND AGAIN, I CAN'T PRESUME TO KNOW WHY.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS IS A LACK OF ABILITY, UM, A LACK OF WILLINGNESS TO COMPLY, UM, OR SOMETHING, UH, YOU KNOW, WITH A MORE NEFARIOUS REASON.
I DON'T KNOW THE REASON, BUT I DO KNOW THAT YOU'LL SEE THE NAMES OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH YOUR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS IS A VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT IT'S PROVIDED FOR IN THE FIRST RULE RULE 1.1, IN FACT, AND IT CAN BECOME EVEN MORE SERIOUS.
AND THIS IS HOW, IF YOU WERE NON-COMPLIANT WITH YOUR PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS AND YOU, YOU CAN BE DECLARED INELIGIBLE TO PRACTICE LAW.
YOU CAN BE DECLARED INELIGIBLE BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T FILED YOUR REGISTRATION STATEMENT.
YOU CAN BE DECLARED INELIGIBLE BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T MADE YOUR MANDATORY, YOU HAVEN'T MET YOUR MANDATORY CLE REQUIREMENTS.
YOU CAN BE DECLARED INELIGIBLE BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT PAID YOUR BAR ASSOCIATION DUES, AND YOU CAN BE DECLARED INELIGIBLE BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT PAID YOUR DISCIPLINARY ASSESSMENT.
ALL OF THOSE REASONS CAN LEAD TO INELIGIBILITY.
AND IF YOU ARE INELIGIBLE AND YOU ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW, IT IS IMPROPER AND ENGAGING IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW.
DURING A PERIOD OF INELIGIBILITY IS A VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
I THINK THE NUMBER IS RULE 5.5 IT'S IN THE MATERIALS AND SUCH MISCONDUCT CAN LEAD TO THE IMPOSITION OF DISCIPLINE.
AND THE BASELINE SANCTION FOR SUCH MISCONDUCT IS A ONE-YEAR AND ONE DAY PERIOD OF SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW.
NOW I WANT TO DISTINGUISH FAILURE TO, OR I WANT TO DISTINGUISH INELIGIBLE PRAC ENGAGING IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW DURING A PERIOD OF INELIGIBILITY, FROM ENGAGING IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW, DURING A PERIOD OF SUSPENSION ARE AFTER HAVING BEEN DISBARRED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW, ENGAGING IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW DURING A PERIOD OF INELIGIBILITY IS NOT CONSIDERED AS SERIOUS OF MISCONDUCT AS ENGAGING IN MISCONDUCT DURING, UM, AFTER HAVING BEEN SUSPENDED OR DISBARRED, YOU ARE LOOKING AT MUCH HARSHER SANCTIONS.
AND IN FACT, PRACTICING LAW AFTER HAVING BEEN SUSPENDED OR DISBARRED WITHOUT HAVING BEEN REINSTATED OR READMITTED CAN LEAD TO PERMANENT DISBARMENT, THE, THE PERMANENT DISBARMENT GUIDELINES ACTUALLY SPEAK TO THAT.
SO THAT IS MUCH MORE SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, BUT I THINK SOME ATTORNEYS DON'T REALIZE THAT ENGAGING IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW DURING A PERIOD OF INELIGIBILITY IS ALSO SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, AND I'M CALLING IT SERIOUS BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE POSSIBILITY OF A YEAR AND A DAY, SITTING ON THE BENCH, HAVING TO APPLY, UM, BACK, HAVING TO APPLY TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT TO BE REINSTATED TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW.
THIS IS ONE OF THOSE TIMES I'M GOING TO DIVERGE A LITTLE BIT WITH SOMETHING THAT I FOOTNOTED PERIODS OF SUSPENSION, DISCIPLINARY SUSPENSION IN LOUISIANA CAN BE ACTUAL, OR THEY CAN BE DEFERRED SIMILAR TO CRIMINAL COURT, A SUSPENDED SENTENCE, RIGHT? IF YOU ARE SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR AN ACTUAL PERIOD THAT EXCEEDS A YEAR, THAT'S WHY YOU'LL ALWAYS HEAR DISCIPLINARY ATTORNEYS.
AND, UM, WHETHER THEY BE PROSECUTORS OR DEFENSE SIDE, YOU ALWAYS HEAR THEM DEBATING OVER THE ONE YEAR.
I MEAN, THE ONE DAY, THE ONE DAY CAN WE DO A YEAR, DO WE HAVE TO DO THE YEAR AND A DAY? IF YOUR PERIOD OF SUSPENSION IS FOR A YEAR AND A DAY, YOU HAVE TO FORMALLY APPLY FOR REINSTATEMENT.
[00:30:01]
GO TO A HEARING.AND AT THE HEARING, THE ATTORNEY APPLYING FOR REINSTATEMENT HAS TO MEET THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 19.
AND THAT THAT ATTORNEY HAS THE APPROPRIATE CHARACTER AND FITNESS TO, UM, BE REINSTATED TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW.
AND IT'S A DECISION THAT ULTIMATELY THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT MAKES.
SO THE ATTORNEY APPLIES FOR REINSTATEMENT.
THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL CONDUCTS AN INVESTIGATION TO SEE IF THERE'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES.
AND IF THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL TAKES NO POSITION OR OBJECTS TO THAT APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT OR READMISSION, IF IT'S A DISBARMENT, THEN THE MATTER GOES TO A HEARING.
THE ATTORNEY PRESENTS THEIR EVIDENCE TO MEET THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF.
THE HEARING COMMITTEE MAKES A REPORT AND THEY MAKE THEIR REPORT TO THE COURT.
SO THE COURT CAN MAKE ITS DECISION.
SO A YEAR AND A DAY PERIOD OF SUSPENSION, ACTUAL PERIOD OF SUSPENSION IS SERIOUS AS A SERIOUS SANCTION, AT LEAST IN MY PERSPECTIVE.
SO WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT NON-COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS, THE BASELINE SANCTION, IF YOU'RE FOUND TO HAVE ENGAGED IN THE OTHERWISE PRACTICE OF LAW DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME IS A YEAR AND A DAY SUSPENSION.
AND I, I GAVE YOU IN THE MATERIALS, A COUPLE OF CASES WHERE IT'S DISCUSSED.
AND ONE OF THE CASES I'M GOING TO DISCUSS WITH YOU BRIEFLY IS THE SMOTHERS CASE.
AND IN YOUR MATERIALS, I REFER TO SMOTHERS ONE AND I REFER TO SOME OTHERS TOO.
AND THIS WAS ACTUALLY A CASE THAT I INVESTIGATED AND ULTIMATELY PROSECUTED SMOTHERS TO MR. SMOTHERS WAS AN ATTORNEY WHO WAS NOT COMPLYING WITH HIS ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS.
AND IN SMOTHERS ONE, AN INVESTIGATION WAS CONDUCTED BY ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES AND THAT COLLEAGUE BROUGHT THE MATTER TO FORMAL CHARGES THAT MR. SMOTHERS WAS REPRESENTING A CLIENT COLLECTING LEGAL FEES WHILE NOT ENGAGED, UM, EXCUSE ME, WHILE NOT, UM, ELIGIBLE TO PRACTICE LAW DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE WITH HIS PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS WHILE SMOTHERS ONE WAS MAKING ITS WAY THROUGH THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS.
AND IF I CAN REMEMBER, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT'S CHANGED ABOUT THAT SINCE 2019, BUT WHILE IT'S MAKING ITS WAY THROUGH THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS, MR. SMOTHERS RECEIVES ANOTHER COMPLAINT THAT COMPLAINTS ASSIGNED TO ME, AND I INVESTIGATE IT AS PART OF MY INVESTIGATION.
I ACTUALLY MET WITH MR. SMOTHERS, WHO I WILL SAY IS A VERY NICE MAN.
AND I FOUND THAT WHILE THE OTHER MATTER WAS ONGOING, MR. SMOTHERS WAS CONTINUING TO HOLD HIM, SET OUT SELF OUT AS AN ATTORNEY TO BILL FOR LEGAL FEES AND TO PROVIDE ADVICE, LEGAL ADVICE TO A CLIENT.
I WILL SAY THAT IT WAS SORT OF UNDISPUTED BECAUSE THERE WAS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FACTS OF THE CONDUCT THAT HE, THAT HE WAS ENGAGED IN.
AND ULTIMATELY FORMER CHARGES WERE BROUGHT.
AND MR. SMOTHERS CHOSE NOT TO ANSWER THE FORMAL CHARGES AND SMOTHERS TO THE PROCEEDING I BROUGHT.
AND THE MATTER MADE ITS WAY TO THE COURT WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR A YEAR AND A DAY, ACTUAL PERIOD.
AND AT THE TIME, THE MATTER GOT TO THE COURT, MR. SMOTHERS WAS ACTUALLY GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO FILE A BRIEF WITH THE COURT TO EXPLAIN HIMSELF, REMEMBER HE HAD NOT PARTICIPATED AT THE HEARING COMMITTEE LEVEL, UH, RIGHT.
AND THE COURT ISSUED ITS OPINION.
AND I, I BELIEVE I QUOTE FOR YOU AND I REFERENCED THIS EARLIER, BUT IN YOUR MATERIALS, I CROW, I QUOTE FOR YOU JUSTICE QUIETENS CONCURRENCE.
AND WHEN YOU READ THIS CONCURRENCE, JUSTICE CRIGHTON DID SUCH A GREAT JOB OF SETTING FORTH ALL THE EFFORTS THAT WERE MADE TO HAVE MR. SMOTHERS EXPLAIN HIS ACTIONS AND MR. SMOTHERS CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.
AND THE COURT'S DISSATISFACTION IN PARTICULAR JUSTICE, QUIETENS DISSATISFACTION WITH THAT DECISION THAT WAS BEING MADE IS SELF-EVIDENT IN THE CONCURRENCE THAT HE DRAFTED.
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ IT BECAUSE I THINK IT REALLY BRINGS TO THE TABLE WHAT OUR OBLIGATIONS ARE AS ATTORNEYS OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE PROFESSION AND RESPECT FOR THE COURT.
SO AGAIN, I WANT TO BRING THAT ONE TO YOUR ATTENTION.
AND NOW I REMEMBERED I'M GOING TO DO A COUPLE OF ASIDES.
ONE OF THE THINGS I MENTIONED WAS DEEK, SOMETHING BEING DEEMED ADMITTED.
YOU'LL HEAR THAT TERMINOLOGY A LOT AND, UH, DEEMED ADMITTED AS KIND OF LIKE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT.
BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL BRINGS FORMAL CHARGES.
NOTICE IS SENT TO THE ATTORNEY WHO WE REFER TO IN A DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING INVOLVING FORMAL CHARGES AS THE RESPONDENT AND THE RESPONDENT HAS A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DAYS TO ANSWER THOSE FORMAL CHARGES.
[00:35:01]
IF THE DEFENDANT CHOOSES NOT TO ANSWER THE FORMAL CHARGES, THEN THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL SHAO IT'S MANDATORY SHALL MOVE TO HAVE THOSE FORMAL CHARGES DEEMED ADMITTED IN PROVEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.SO WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IS THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED WITHIN OUR FORMAL CHARGES BECOME ACCEPTED AS PROVEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN WE'VE PROVEN THE RULE VIOLATION, RIGHT? THAT'S A QUESTION OF LAW, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO PRESENT ANY OTHER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE, OF THE RULE VIOLATION THAT WE SEEK.
ONCE A MATTER IS DEEMED ADMITTED.
THEN THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL AND THE RESPONDENT, EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE CHOSEN NOT TO PARTICIPATE OR PUT ON, NOTICE THAT WE'RE TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SANCTION, WHEN THE OPPOSITE DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL SUBMITS ITS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.
AGAIN, I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF.
I PROVIDE THE HEARING COMMITTEE WITH ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT I'VE GATHERED IN SUPPORT OF MY DISCIPLINARY PROSECUTION.
AND THE HEARING COMMITTEE WILL LOOK AT THAT AND THEY WILL ISSUE THEIR REPORT AND THEIR REPORT WILL BE WHAT THEY THINK THERE IS, HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AS A MATTER OF LAW AS A RULE VIOLATION AND WHAT THEY THINK THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION WILL BE.
HERE'S ANOTHER ASIDE SPEAKING TO SOME OF THE CHANGES SINCE MAY OF 2019 WITH THE REPEALING AND REENACTMENT OF RULE 19, THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, RIGHT? IT USED TO BE, WE HAVE A THREE TIER SYSTEM DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM IN LOUISIANA, MUCH LIKE WE HAVE A THREE TIER SYSTEM IN THE CIVIL COURT AND THE CRIMINAL COURT ACTUALLY TRIAL COURT, APPELLATE COURT, SUPREME COURT, AND THE DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM SYSTEM.
WE HAVE HEARING COMMITTEES, REMEMBER PANELS, THE DETERMINED FACT MAKE, MAKE REPORT AS TO WHAT THEY THINK THE WOOL VIOLATIONS ARE AND WHAT THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION IS.
LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, THAT'S YOUR INTERMEDIARY LEVEL AND THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT, WHICH SITS IN ITS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, BUT IT IS THE THIRD TIER EFFECTIVE IN MAY OF 2019.
THE COURTS SAID THAT WHEN A HEARING COMMITTEE MAKES ITS REPORT AND NEITHER PARTY OBJECTS, THAT THE, UM, REPORT WILL BE SENT WITH THE RECORD DIRECTLY TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT.
AND THEN ONCE THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT HAS THAT REPORT, REMEMBER THERE'S BEEN NO OBJECTION FILED BY THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL BY THE RESPONDENT OR THE RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY.
IF THEY'RE REPRESENTED, THEN THE COURT CAN ISSUE ITS OPINION.
IT CAN REMAND IT TO THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD FOR BRIEFING AND ARGUMENT, FRANKLY, IT CAN DO WHAT IT CHOOSES BECAUSE REMEMBER THE COURT HAS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
SO IF THEY FEEL THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE REMANDED FOR A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING, THAT'S WITHIN THE COURT'S AUTHORITY.
BUT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN AN ATTEMPT TO SHORTEN THAT EARLIER MENTIONED LENGTHY DISCIPLINARY PROCESS IS THAT IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO THE REPORT OF THE HEARING COMMITTEE, THE MATTER GOES STRAIGHT TO THE COURT.
AND QUITE OFTEN THE COURT WILL ISSUE ITS OPINION.
AND IT DOES SORT OF EXPEDITE THE PROCESS.
SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU WERE FAMILIAR WITH DANGER ADMITTED AND TO ALSO MAKE SURE YOU WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE CHANGE IN THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS.
SO WHAT ARE A FEW TIPS? I HAVE, I ALWAYS SAY IT GOES BACK FULL CIRCLE, RIGHT? I TALKED ABOUT THE EMAIL AND ABOUT THE EMAIL BEING AWAY TO NOTIFY THE ATTORNEY THAT WE'RE SEEKING AN INITIAL RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT, PERHAPS SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES, DOCUMENTATION.
I TALKED ABOUT THE EMAIL NOW BEING THE METHODOLOGY FOR WARNING YOU THAT YOU'RE NON-COMPLIANT WITH YOUR MCLE OBLIGATIONS, WHICH COULD LEAD TO A DETERMINATION THAT YOU'RE ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW DURING A PERIOD OF INELIGIBILITY.
AND THEN I KIND OF CONCLUDED WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF JUSTICE CRIGHTON AND THE SMOTHERS TWO DECISION WHERE HE TALKS ABOUT THE FEELINGS OR THE COURT'S OPINION, OR AT LEAST HIS OPINION OF THAT NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE OBLIGATION TO RESPOND AND COOPERATE, NOT JUST WITH DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, BUT OF COURSE ALSO WITH THE COURT, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A FEW TIPS ON WHAT TO DO, UM, WHEN YOU RECEIVED THE INITIAL RESPONSE IN TERMS OF RESPONDING.
BUT BEFORE I DO THAT VERY IMPORTANT, IF I HAD A BELL, I WOULD RING IT.
THE MAGIC PHRASE THAT YOU NEED TO REMEMBER IN ORDER TO GET CREDIT IS GOOD TIMES, WRITE DOWN GOOD TIMES.
AND THE SECOND PHRASE YOU NEED TO REMEMBER NOW IS GOOD TIMES.
SO WHAT CAN I TELL YOU ABOUT RESPONDING AND COOPERATING SUBMIT AN INITIAL RESPONSE? I HAVE LITERALLY MET WITH ATTORNEYS.
UM, THEY HAVE NOT SUBMITTED INITIAL RESPONSES.
[00:40:01]
THEM WITH A SUBPOENA TO APPEAR FOR PURPOSES OF A SWORN STATEMENT.I'M FAIRLY, UM, FAIRLY A FAIRLY, UM, CASUAL PERSON.
I TRY TO TREAT PEOPLE WITH THE RESPECT THAT I WOULD HOPE WOULD BE GIVEN TO ME.
I DON'T THINK THAT I'M ABOVE, I'M MAKING MISTAKES.
AND I SAY, I NEED YOU TO GIVE ME AN INITIAL RESPONSE.
I NEED THAT INITIAL RESPONSE SO THAT I CAN FORWARD IT TO THE COMPLAINANT, BECAUSE SO MUCH OF WHAT WE DO IS SIMPLY A MISUNDERSTANDING WITH THE COMPLAINANT.
AND OFTEN WHEN THEY RECEIVED THAT INITIAL RESPONSE, THAT'S THE SATISFACTION THEY NEED.
AND THE MATTER IS RESOLVED AND WE CAN ACTUALLY CLOSE IT IN OUR OFFICE.
AND I'LL SAY, SO, ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE ME THAT WRITTEN INITIAL RESPONSE? AND I'VE BEEN TOLD ON OCCASION, AND I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ALL THE TIME, BUT YOU KNOW, UM, I'M DEALING WITH SOMEONE WHO'S NOT COMMUNICATING AND I'VE BEEN TOLD, I'LL DO IT.
I JUST, I JUST HAVE TO FIND THE TIME TO DO IT.
AND I SAID, YOU DON'T HAVE TO FIND THE TIME TO DO IT.
YOU COULD GO SIT IN YOUR CAR RIGHT NOW AND HAND, WRITE OUT AN INITIAL RESPONSE AND LEAVE IT AT THE FRONT DESK.
AND AT LEAST NOW I HAVE AN INITIAL RESPONSE FROM YOU AND WE'VE DEALT WITH THAT ISSUE.
AND NOW WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS, BUT RESPOND TO ME, PARTICIPATE IN THE SYSTEM.
AND I DON'T, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHY I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THAT FOR SOME PEOPLE, THEY DON'T DO IT BECAUSE THEY'RE OVERWHELMED BY THE STRESS OF THE COMPLAINT.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S NOT A GOOD ENOUGH EXCUSE.
YOU NEED TO SUBMIT THE INITIAL.
DO YOU REMEMBER? WE TALKED AT THE BEGINNING, AM I DEALING WITH SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T KNOW SOMEONE WHO'S UNWILLING TO LEARN OR SOMEONE WHO'S DISHONEST? SOME PEOPLE DON'T RESPOND BECAUSE IF THEY RESPOND, I FORGIVE ME FOR SAYING THIS.
THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT YOU DON'T ALREADY HAVE BECAUSE THEY DON'T.
THEY'RE TRYING TO PREVENT YOU FROM FINDING SOME INFORMATION, BUT NOT RESPONDING.
DOESN'T END THE INVESTIGATION.
IT CERTAINLY WON'T END THE PROSECUTION BECAUSE NOT RESPONDING AND NOT COOPERATING OR A VIOLATION OF THEMSELVES.
AND ALL IT DOES IS CAUSE ME AS A DEPUTY DISCIPLINARY COUNCIL INVESTIGATOR, TO WONDER WHY DON'T THEY WANT TO WORK WITH ME? AND SOMETIMES NOT RESPONDING CAN LEAD TO ASSUMPTIONS THAT IT'S WORSE THAN IT IS.
IF I CAN'T DOCUMENT MONEY, BEING CHAT CHANNEL TO YOUR CLIENT AND YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN ME THE DOCUMENTATION TO ESTABLISH THAT MONEY DOODLE CLIENT WAS INDEED TRANSFERRED TO THE CLIENT.
THEN ALL I HAVE ARE THE REPRESENTATIONS BEING MADE TO ME BY THE CLIENT AND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE I'VE BEEN ABLE TO GATHER.
SO SUBMIT THAT INITIAL RESPONSE, SUBMIT IT COOPERATE WITH THE DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION, MONITOR THE INVESTIGATION THAT'S PENDING AGAINST YOU.
IF YOU FIND YOURSELF IN THE POSITION OF THE RESPONDENT, YOU KNOW THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE ASKED TO PROVIDE AN INITIAL RESPONSE.
ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE REPRESENTING YOU AS A FAVOR, WHO'S NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS, MAKE SURE THEY'RE COPYING YOU ON THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT THEY'RE RECEIVING FROM THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL.
REMEMBER IF YOU'RE REPRESENTED COMMUNICATIONS ARE WITH YOUR ATTORNEY, NOT WITH YOU DIRECTLY, WHEN THEY SUBMIT INITIAL RESPONSES ON YOUR BEHALF, YOU SHOULD BE PARTICIPATING IN THAT, MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE KEEPING YOUR OWN FILE ON IT.
THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMUNICATION IS GOING BOTH WAYS.
AND AGAIN, ESPECIALLY IF SOMEONE'S NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR DISCIPLINARY MATTERS BECAUSE IT IS DIFFERENT.
YOU KNOW, IT'S ITS OWN, IT'S ITS OWN BEAST.
IF YOU'RE REPRESENTING A CLIENT BEFORE THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, BE MINDFUL OF DEADLINES THAT ARE SET BY THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL FOR THE SUBMISSION OF RESPONSES AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES.
IF YOU CAN'T MAKE THOSE DEADLINES, REACH OUT, COMMUNICATE WITH THE ATTORNEY THAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH IN THE OFFICE.
MOST OF US ARE FAIRLY REASONABLE.
SO REACH OUT, ASK FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME.
DON'T ABUSE IT BECAUSE IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME AND THEN THAT TIME COMES AND GOES, THE PROCESS IS VERY REAL.
AND AS WE WOULD SAY TO, AS I SAID TO YOU EARLIER, THE CASE IS GOING TO CONTINUE DELAYING.
IT IS NOT GOING TO PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING.
SO IF YOU'RE REPRESENTING SOMEONE, YOU ESPECIALLY SHOULD BE COMMUNICATING IN CORRESPONDING WITH THE OFFICE, PARTICIPATE IN A DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING.
IF IT'S BROUGHT AGAINST YOU, THIS ISN'T ABOUT THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL.
THIS IS ABOUT COURTESY TO THE COURT, COURTESY TO YOUR COLLEAGUES AND PEERS WHO WERE SITTING ON THE HEARING COMMITTEE AS VOLUNTEERS COURTESY TO THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD MEMBERS WHO WILL HEAR IN ANY INTERMEDIATE APPEAL PRIOR TO THE MATTER PRESENTING TO THE SUPREME COURT.
THEY'RE VERY MINDFUL OF RESPONDENTS WHO ARE PARTICIPATING, WHO WERE PRESENT AT THE DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS AT THE HEARING, OBVIOUSLY AT BOARD ARGUMENTS
[00:45:01]
AT COURT ARGUMENTS NOTICE, ALWAYS MADE OF THAT.IT'S A STRONG INDICATOR OF REMORSE.
IT'S A STRONG INDICATOR OF AN ATTORNEY TRYING TO MAKE THINGS RIGHT.
AND EVEN IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THE CHARGES THAT YOU DON'T AGREE WITH, THE ACT THE ALLEGATIONS BEING MADE IN THE, IN THOSE CHARGES ARE YOU FEEL THAT YOUR DEFENSE IS SOUND AND SOLID.
YOU STILL NEED TO APPEAR BECAUSE IT SHOWS RESPECT FOR THE SYSTEM.
AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, RESPECT FOR THE COURT.
WE'RE GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT AND PROFESSIONALISM, UH, IN A MINUTE.
AND IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT AN ATTORNEY FACING A DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING IN AN ATTORNEY INVOLVED IN A DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING, THIS IS AFTER THE INVESTIGATION'S OVER.
AND IT WOULD BE WHEN FORMAL CHARGES ARE FILED OR A PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OR READMISSION.
WHEN YOU GET AN ORDER, RESPOND TO THE ORDER.
IF A HEARING COMMITTEE ORDERS YOU TO DO SOMETHING, DO IT.
IF THE BOARD ORDERS YOU TO BREATHE TIMELY, SUBMIT YOUR BRIEF.
AND IN PARTICULAR, IF THE COURT ORDERS YOU TO SUBMIT A BRIEF ON AN ISSUE OF SANCTION, SUBMIT YOUR BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THE SUPREME COURT'S ORDER.
AND THIS GOES BEYOND COURTESY.
IT GOES BEYOND BEING A CAPABLE, COMPETENT ATTORNEY LICENSED IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.
IF YOU'RE FACING A COMPLAINT THAT SAID WHERE THE COMPLAINANT IS SAYING THAT THE ATTORNEY WOULD NOT, WHETHER IT'S OPPOSING COUNSEL OR A FORMER CLIENT, THE ATTORNEY WOULDN'T RESPOND TO MY TELEPHONE CALLS.
THE ATTORNEY FAILED TO SHOW UP IN COURT.
UM, ON THE DAY OF MY TRIAL, THE ATTORNEY, UM, FAILED TO PAY, POP, PROPERLY, PAY THE THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS.
AND NOW I'M BEING SUED FOR NON-PAY NON-PAYMENT OF THOSE THIRD-PARTY PROVIDERS.
AND THEN YOU DON'T SHOW UP AT YOUR DISCIPLINARY MATTER AND YOU DON'T RESPOND TO YOUR DISCIPLINARY MATTER.
IT'S GOING TO NECESSARILY KIND OF SHOW BEHAVIOR THAT IS SORT OF SUPPORTING WHAT THOSE ALLEGATIONS WERE THAT WERE BEING MADE AGAINST YOU.
SO TAKE THAT TIME, UM, BE CONSIDERATE OF THE ORDERS AND OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE COURT.
AND REMEMBER, WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.
WE'RE TRYING TO REACH THE RIGHT RESULT, UM, FOR BOTH THE PUBLIC AND FOR OUR PROFESSION.
I TOLD YOU ALL, I TALK A LOT, SO I DIDN'T GET VERY FAR INTO MY MATERIALS, BUT I CONSIDER THAT TO BE SUCCESS.
I ALWAYS LIKED WRITTEN MATERIALS TO BE MORE EXTENSIVE THAN, UM, THAN THE TALK THAT I HAVE.
THEY'RE THERE FOR YOU FOR REVIEW AND FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION OR INVESTIGATION ON YOUR PART, IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO.
BUT THERE'S ONE OTHER CASE I WANTED TO MENTION TO YOU IN THIS LAST COUPLE OF MINUTES BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO PROFESSIONALISM.
AND THAT CASE WAS DECIDED A WEEK AGO, I THINK LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AGO BY THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT AND THE CASES IN RAY O'QUINN AUC O I N.
AND I DO GIVE YOU A CITATION, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE THE SOUTHERN THIRD CITATION, IT'S NOT YET AVAILABLE.
YOU SIMPLY HAVE THE PUBLIC DOMAIN CITATION.
AND I THOUGHT IT WAS AN INTERESTING CASE, UH, TO DISCUSS IN THE CONTEXT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT MCLE COMPLIANCE AND WHAT'S INTERESTING.
AND O'QUINN IS THAT MR. O'QUINN HA WAS NON-COMPLIANT WITH HIS ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT MCLA.
AND APPARENTLY, UM, IT WAS DETERMINED DURING INVESTIGATION THAT MR. O'QUINN HAD, UM, WHAT WAS THE TERM THEY USED.
HE HAD TAKEN UPON HIMSELF TO ALTER A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OF CLE.
AND THE MATTER WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, MR. O'QUINN, I BELIEVE GAVE A STATEMENT UNDER OATH WHERE HE DENIED, ALTERING THE DOCUMENT AND DURING THE HEARING ON WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD ALTERED THE DOCUMENT AND LISTEN, THERE WERE OTHER CHARGES INVOLVED THAT WASN'T THE SOLE ISSUE, BUT, UM, HE TESTIFIED AGAIN, I DID NOT ALTER THE DOCUMENT.
I MEAN, HE, HE HELD TO HIS POSITION, BUT IT WAS ULTIMATELY DETERMINED THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION HAD IN FACT BEEN ALTERED AND, UM, MR. OAKLAND WAS DISCIPLINED FOR THAT.
SO I THINK IT'S FITTING AS WE CONCLUDE THIS STATEMENT, AND WE TALK ABOUT THE, UM, THE MAGIC TERMS THAT YOU HAVE TO REPORT IN ORDER TO GET CREDIT FOR THIS ONE HOUR OF ETHICS, UM, THAT YOU RESPOND TRUTHFULLY, UM, AND THAT YOU PROPERLY REPORT YOUR CLE ATTENDANCE.
MR. OAKLAND WAS SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR IN ONE DAY.
AND AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER, THAT MEANS THAT HE WILL HAVE TO APPLY FOR REINSTATEMENT DURING WHICH TIME HE WILL HAVE TO ESTABLISH THAT HE MEETS THE CRITERIA.
I THINK IT'S RULE 19 SECTION 24.
REMEMBER THOSE OLD LAW PROFESSORS WHO COULD REMEMBER THINGS LIKE THAT.
I'M NOT THAT GOOD, BUT I THINK IT'S WHAT IT IS.
AND HE'LL HAVE TO PROVE THAT HE HAS MET ALL THE CRITERIA FOR REINSTATEMENT AND ASK THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT TO ALLOW HIM TO, UH, RE ENTER THE PRACTICE OF LAW
[00:50:01]
AND THE REPRESENTATION OF CLIENTS.UM, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SEVERAL PROCEDURAL ISSUES.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT REINSTATEMENTS AND READMISSIONS.
UH, I DO WANT TO CAUTION YOU THAT THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE IN OUR RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
THOSE ARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES REGARDING ADVERTISING.
THOSE RULES ARE NOT IN EFFECT YET, BUT IT'S ARE, LET'S SEE IF I'M WRONG ON THAT DATE.
I THINK IT'S EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST, 2022.
AND I THINK IN MY MATERIALS, I MISS, I WROTE DOWN 2021, WHICH WE ALL KNOW HAS ALREADY PASSED.
I DON'T KNOW IF I SAID THIS BEFORE, BUT ANY TYPOS I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR, BECAUSE THIS IS MY OWN WORK AND MY OWN TYPING, BUT ANYWAY, FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH THOSE RULES, UM, AND CONSISTENT WITH THOSE RULES THAT WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
THERE HAVE BEEN TWO RECENT LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT CASES THAT HAVE COME OUT DEALING WITH FORMAL CHARGES THAT WERE FILED IN REGARD TO VIOLATION OF THE ADVERTISING RULES.
IN PARTICULAR, UNDER THE ADVERTISING RULES, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A PROPOSED AD TO THE LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION FOR EVALUATION, THE CASES THAT ARE CITED IN THOSE CASES, THE ATTORNEYS FAILED TO SUBMIT THEIR ADS FOR REVIEW TO THE LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, AND THE COURT DID IMPOSE DISCIPLINE.
UM, SO BE VERY CAUTIOUS, BE CAUTIOUS OF THAT, BE CAREFUL ABOUT IT, DO IT PROPERLY.
AND ANOTHER NEW THING THAT'S COMING OUT AND WE'RE HAVING ACTUALLY AN ADVERTISING.
I CALL IT MY COLLEAGUE CALLED IT AN ADVERTISING MEETING, UM, IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS TO DISCUSS SOME OF THESE NEW RULES BECAUSE THEY'RE BRAND NEW FOR US TOO.
BUT ANOTHER THING THAT'S COMING OUT IS THAT, UM, ADS IN LOUISIANA NOW WILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE LIKE FILE NUMBERS AND THE FILE NUMBER WILL HAVE TO BE PLACED ON THE AD.
SO PLEASE READ THAT LITTLE SECTION, UM, BEEF, FAMILIARIZE IT, BE READY IF YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY THAT ADVERTISES IN A PHONE BOOK, A NEWSPAPER, A BILLBOARD TV, UM, PLEASE BE FAMILIAR WITH IT.
DON'T FIND YOURSELF IN A POSITION WHERE YOU'RE FACING POSSIBLE A POSSIBLE DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION, UM, BECAUSE YOU'RE NONCOMPLIANT.
SO AGAIN, UM, THAT'S SOMETHING TO BE MINDFUL OF.
AND THEN THE LAST THING IN THE MATERIALS THAT I DID NOT HAVE TIME TO DISCUSS, BUT I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE THE TIME TO READ IT IS MY DISCUSSION REGARDING THE JUDGES AND LAWYERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
UM, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT BOTH TO REINSTATEMENTS OR COMPLIANCE WITH J LAP RECOMMENDED, UH, TREATMENTS, IF YOU'RE FACING A MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER OR SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER, UM, IT'S SIGNIFICANT BOTH TO APPLICATIONS FOR RE REINSTATEMENT AND READMISSION, BUT IT'S ALSO EXTREMELY RELEVANT TO A DETERMINATION OF THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION TO BE IMPOSED IN A DISCIPLINARY MATTER BECAUSE, UM, IF YOU HAVE A SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER THAT IS THERE'S A CAUSAL CONNECTION TO THE MISCONDUCT AND YOU HAVE ENGAGED IN MEANINGFUL REHABILITATION THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A WAY TO MITIGATE THE SANCTION THAT THE COURT MIGHT IMPOSE.
AND ONE OF THE CASES IN PARTICULAR THAT I THOUGHT WAS OF PARTICULAR INTERESTS WAS THE AGUILAR CASE I DISCUSSED WHERE AN ATTORNEY CHOSE TO PARTICIPATE AT LEAST INITIALLY IN A FAITH-BASED RECOVERY PROGRAM, WHICH DID NOT QUALIFY FOR SAFETY, SENSITIVE INDIVIDUALS LIKE ATTORNEYS ARE.
AND SO I WANT YOU TO READ THE COURT'S COMMENTARY ON THAT.
AND THE OTHER CASE THAT I REFERENCED YOU CAN GET THE CASE NAME.
I THINK THE CASE IS MAYOR, UH, YES.
IN THE MATTER OF HENRY MAYER, I REFERENCED THAT ONE BECAUSE OFTEN WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH DUIS OF IF AN ATTORNEY OR ANY PERSON GETS A DUI, THEY'RE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PRETRIAL DIVERSION AND THE MAYOR CASE SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSES PARTICIPATION IN PRETRIAL DIVERSION, AND, UM, THE INTERPLAY OF THAT WITH, UH, THE JUDGES AND LAWYERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND THE DETERMINATION AND IMPOSITION OF THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION, UH, IN SUCH A SITUATION.
SO AGAIN, I THINK THEY'RE INTERESTING CASES AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THEM AT YOUR CONVENIENCE, AND THAT WILL CONCLUDE, I THINK WE'RE AFTER TWO O'CLOCK.
SO AM I CORRECT ON TIME? RIGHT.
SO WE'RE GOING TO CONCLUDE THE ETHICS VIOLATION, UM, THE ETHICS DISCUSSION, FORGIVE ME, I'M GOING TO TAKE A SIP OF WATER AND THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO PROFESSIONALISM AND WE WILL SPEND AN HOUR ON PROFESSIONALISM.
[00:55:27]
ALL RIGHT, AS WE TURN OUR ATTENTION TO PROFESSIONALISM, UM, YOU'RE GOING TO NOTICE THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME OVERLAP.I WILL TELL YOU IN THE PAST, WHEN I'VE DONE THE ETHICS PRESENTATION, I GO STRAIGHT INTO THE PROFESSIONALISM PRESENTATION.
THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ETHICS MATTERS THAT SORT OF BLEED INTO THE PROFESSIONALISM MATTER.
BUT THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT IS CLEAR THAT PROFESSIONALISM IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ETHICS.
AND TO THAT END, WE'RE REQUIRED TO GET NOT ONLY AN HOUR IN CLE, UM, AN HOUR OF CLE AND ETHICS, BUT WE'RE ALSO REQUIRED TO GET AN HOUR AND PROFESSIONALISM TRAINING.
THERE'S SOMETHING THAT I DON'T THINK A LOT OF ATTORNEYS ARE AWARE OF, UH, THAT TOOK PLACE IN 2021.
AND TO ME, THIS AMENDMENT THAT THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED, UM, IN REGARD TO RULE 30, WHICH IS UNDER THE MCLE PROVISIONS, SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT HOW COMMITTED THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT IS TO PROFESSIONALISM.
AND IF YOU WILL ALLOW ME TO READ TO YOU, WHICH I KNOW PEOPLE HATE DURING OUR, DURING THE PRESENTATION I'M GOING TO DO SO SORRY THAT THE BLUE LIGHT GLASSES ARE READING BLUE ON THE SCREEN, PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS THE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL OF THE LAW, FAITHFULLY EMPLOYED IN SERVICE OF CLIENT AND PUBLIC GOOD AND ENTAILS WHAT IS MORE BROADLY EXPECTED OF ATTORNEYS AND INCLUDES COURSES ON THE DUTIES OF ATTORNEYS, ELIMINATION OF BIAS OR DISCRIMINATORY COMMUNICATION OR CONDUCT EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE, SENSITIVITY TO CULTURAL AND OTHER DIFFERENCES.
WHEN INTERACTING WITH MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC JUDGES, JURORS, LITIGANTS ATTORNEYS, AND COURT PERSONNEL, IT INCLUDES ATTORNEY COMPETENCY AND PRO BONO OBLIGATIONS.
THIS RULE AS AMENDED WAS EFFECTIVE, JUNE 23RD, 2021, THERE'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU READ SECONDARY SOURCES, UM, PROFESSIONALISM, BLOGS, I READ QUITE A FEW OF THEM ON A NATIONAL LEVEL, UM, AND LOCAL LEVEL.
AND YOU READ, UM, ARTICLES, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN THIS SORT OF DEBATE.
DO WE REALLY NEED PROFESSIONALISM? CAN PROFESSIONALISM BE TAUGHT? IS IT, UH, IT IS, IS IT PART OF CHARACTER IN IT? AND HOW DO YOU CHANGE SOMEONE'S CHARACTER? AND SO THERE'VE BEEN NAYSAYERS IN PARTICULAR TO HAVING IT AS A SEPARATE REQUIREMENT.
THE POSITION GENERALLY IS NOT THAT WE SHOULDN'T TALK ABOUT PROFESSIONALISM, BUT THAT IT SHOULD BE INCORPORATED AS PART OF AN ETHICS PRESENTATION.
AND TO ME, AGAIN, ONLY MY OPINION, BUT TO ME, THIS STATEMENT EFFECTIVE JUNE 23RD, 2021 IS AN EXPRESS STATEMENT THAT THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT IS COMMITTED TO PROFESSIONALISM.
AND I DON'T SEE THIS ONE, ONE HOUR REQUIREMENT GOING AWAY ANYTIME SOON.
SO AGAIN, UM, IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER.
I KNOW FOR ME, I KNOW I'M AN OLDER ATTORNEY.
I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A WHILE.
AND TO ME I'VE ALWAYS FELT MY BACKGROUND IS IN, UH, ACCOUNTING.
AND IN ACCOUNTING, WE HAD TO TAKE AN ETHICS COURSES MANY, MANY YEARS AGO.
AND, BUT WE HAD TAKEN ETHICS COURSE IN OUR SENIOR YEAR, LAST SEMESTER OF ACCOUNTING.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THEY USED TO TELL US IS, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE A PROFESSIONAL AND AS A PROFESSIONAL, YOU HAVE OBLIGATIONS THAT ARE GREATER AND GO BEYOND YOUR BUSINESS PRACTICES.
YOU'RE YOUR OBLIGATIONS ARE TO THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY LOOKS TO PROFESSIONALS FOR LEADERSHIP AND GUIDANCE, AND THE COMMUNITY EXPECTS US TO BE EXAMPLES OF THE RIGHT WAY TO BEHAVE.
AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN TO SAY THAT WE DON'T MAKE MISTAKES.
WE'RE ALL GONNA MAKE MISTAKES.
WHEN I CAME IN HERE, I HAD MY JACKET OFF.
I SAID, WELL, IF I'M GONNA TALK ON PROFESSIONALISM, I NEED TO PUT MY JACKET ON, BUT PROFESSIONALISM IS SOMETHING MUCH MORE.
I REMEMBER WHEN I WAS A YOUNGER PERSON, UM, YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS SAY I'M KIND OF COUNTRY COMES TO TOWN.
THAT'S JUST THE WAY I WAS RAISED.
I RAISED, I WAS RAISED IN A VERY RELAXED, LOUD, LARGE, UM, ITALIAN, SPANISH FAMILY.
AND, UM, I HAVE THE BEST MANNERS.
AND WHEN I STARTED, UM, I GREW UP AND I STARTED GOING TO MORE FORMAL EVENTS OR DINNERS.
I DIDN'T KNOW, I DIDN'T KNOW THE RIGHT THINGS TO DO.
IT WAS SOMETHING I HAD TO LEARN AND I WOULD, I WOULD READ ABOUT IT.
AND I USED TO FEEL VERY INSECURE THAT I WAS GOING TO GO SOMEWHERE AND EMBARRASS MYSELF BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW PROPER ETIQUETTE OR PROPER BEHAVIOR.
AND ONE THING I LEARNED AS I AGED IS THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT BEING COURTEOUS AND BEING PROFESSIONAL IS BEING KIND AND BEING RESPECTFUL OF OTHER PEOPLE'S FEELINGS.
NOBODY CARES IF YOU'RE USING THE RIGHT FORK OR THE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT CARE ABOUT THAT, AREN'T REALLY THE ONES THAT YOU THAT MATTER.
[01:00:01]
OF US ABOUT TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING, AND WE'RE GOING TO DO WRONG THINGS ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS.SO YOU CAN'T NECESSARILY, YOU CAN TRY NOT TO DO MAKE A MISTAKE, BUT WHAT REALLY MATTERS IS WHAT YOU DO AFTER THAT MISTAKE, WHAT DO YOU DO TO TRY AND MAKE IT RIGHT? WHAT DO YOU DO TO TRY AND NOT LET THAT MISTAKE HAPPEN AGAIN? AND I THINK THAT'S PART OF WHAT IT IS TO BE A PROFESSIONAL.
AND I DO AGREE WITH THE THOUGHT THAT OUR OBLIGATION IS TO THE COMMUNITY.
IT'S NOT JUST TO THE, THE MEMBERS OF THE PROFESSION AND TO OUR CLIENTS.
UM, I QUOTE, UH, I QUOTE LANGUAGE FROM AN ARIZONA STATE BAR, UH, ARTICLE BECAUSE, OR IT WAS A REPORT OF A TASKFORCE.
I QUOTED IN MY MATERIALS BECAUSE I THINK, I THINK THIS IS A VERY POWERFUL STATEMENT.
AND I'M JUST GOING TO SHARE WITH YOU A PART OF IT.
WE HAVE CHOSEN A DEFINITION OF PROFESSIONALISM THAT APPLIES TO LAWYERS BOTH ON AND OFF THE JOB, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC SEES US AS LAWYERS AT ALL TIMES, NOT JUST IN COURT AND NOT IN OUR OFFICES.
AND, AND AGAIN, I ALWAYS TRY TO SAY, WHEN I TALK TO PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN TAKE ONE THING WITH YOU, I USED TO TEACH AND THEY'D SAY, NOBODY REMEMBERS EVERYTHING YOU SAY.
AND IF THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE LISTENING TO ETHICS, IF YOU REMEMBER THE THING TO REMEMBER FROM THE ETHICS PRESENTATION WAS THE, THE WEBSITE FOR THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, WHERE YOU COULD FIND INFORMATION IF YOU WERE FACING A DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION OR PROSECUTION, OR IF YOU WERE DEFENDING SOMEONE WHO IS, AND, UM, WHAT I WANT YOU TO TAKE FROM THE PROFESSIONALISM PRESENTATION TODAY IS THAT OUR BEHAVIOR MATTERS BOTH IN OUR JOBS AS ATTORNEYS, BUT ALSO IN THE COMMUNITY WHERE WE CAN BE THE ONES WHO AFFECT CHANGE.
AND WHEN I SAY AFFECT CHANGE, I MEAN CHANGE FOR THE BETTER.
SO I HOPE THAT YOU KEEP THAT WITH YOU.
UM, SOMETHING THAT COMES UP WHEN I'M DEALING WITH ATTORNEYS THAT I'M TALKING WITH.
REMEMBER I SAID EARLIER IN THE ETHICS PRESENTATION, THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF COMPLAINTS THAT WE RECEIVE AND INVESTIGATE ULTIMATELY ENDED UP BEING CLOSED.
UM, SOME GET CLOSED WITH SIMPLY THE EXCHANGE OF THE COMPLAINT, INITIAL RESPONSE, AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMPLAINANT TO REPLY SOMETIMES.
UH, AND AGAIN, I SPEAK ONLY FOR MYSELF.
EVERYBODY HANDLES THINGS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY, BUT SOMETIMES I LIKE TO ENGAGE AND I CALL ENGAGING.
UM, I'LL ASK AN ATTORNEY TO COME IN AND MEET WITH ME.
THEY'VE BEEN COOPERATING AND THERE NO NECESSARY, THERE'S NO NECESSITY OF A SUBPOENA, BUT I HAVE THEM COME IN AND TALK TO ME AND, AND WE JUST SORT OF DIALOGUE BACK AND FORTH.
AND THIS IS SOMETHING I'LL DO WHEN I'M DEALING WITH SOMETHING THAT I PERCEIVE TO BE MORE OF A PROFESSIONALISM ISSUE.
UM, PERHAPS A LACK OF INTROSPECTION, AS OPPOSED TO AN ETHICAL VIOLATION THAT WOULD WARRANT THE IMPOSITION OF SOME SORT OF A DISCIPLINARY SANCTION, RIGHT.
AND OFTEN WHEN I BRING ATTORNEYS IN AND I TALK TO THEM AND I'LL SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU WERE RUDE TO THE COURT AND YOU KNOW, NOW THAT I'M MENTIONING THIS TO YOU, DO YOU THINK THAT THAT WAS APPROPRIATE? THAT RESPONSE? YOU SAID WHEN THE COURT ASKED YOU THE QUESTION I'M MAKING THIS UP, THAT'S NOT A REAL EXAMPLE AND THE ATTORNEY WILL RESPOND WELL, I'M A ZEALOUS ADVOCATE FOR MY CLIENT.
AND YOU HEAR THAT VERY OFTEN, ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PROFESSIONALISM ISSUES, I'M BEING A ZEALOUS ADVOCATE.
AND I QUOTE IN THE MATERIALS SOME LANGUAGE FROM, UM, I THINK IT WAS A CONCURRENCE.
NOW, CHIEF JUSTICE WIEMER WHEN HE WAS ON THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL.
AND HE SPEAKS TO WHAT IT IS TO BE AS ELLIS ADVOCATE.
AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO SUMMARIZE HIS WORDS BECAUSE FRANKLY I THINK THAT HIS WORDS WERE BEAUTIFULLY WRITTEN AND I WOULD ONLY, UH, I WOULD ONLY DO THEM A DISSERVICE TO, TO SUMMARIZE THEM.
BUT HE, HE DOES MENTION SOME HISTORICAL INFORMATION THAT I THINK IS RATHER INTERESTING.
THAT BEING AS ELLIS ADVOCATE WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE RULES, UM, AND THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND IT WAS REMOVED.
AND IT WAS A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO REMOVE THE RULES AND BEING AS ELLIS ADVOCATE IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING DISCOURTEOUS OR RUDE.
AND, AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE ALL NEED TO REMEMBER.
WE CAN BE A ZEALOUS ADVOCATE AND OUR STRENGTH IS IN OUR LEGAL ARGUMENT.
OUR STRENGTH IS IN OUR ABILITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE POSITION OF OUR CLIENT.
IT'S NOT IN TALKING OVER PEOPLE.
IT'S NOT IN BEING DISRESPECTFUL TO THE OPPOSING PARTY OR TO THE OPPOSING COUNSEL OR EVEN TO OUR OWN CLIENT.
SO KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN YOU FIND YOURSELF TRYING TO BALANCE BEING AS ELLIS ADVOCATE WITH BEING A PROFESSIONAL AND BEING RESPECTFUL, BUT RESPECTFUL OF THE COURT, I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING.
AND AGAIN, I CITE TO THIS IN THE MATERIALS THAT, UM, JUSTICE WIEMER AGAIN NOW CHIEF JUSTICE WIEMER, EXCUSE ME, SPEAKS TO, UM, ZEALOUS ADVOCACY
[01:05:01]
IN A VERY BRIEF CONCURRING OPINION IN THE ABDI DECISION.AND I CITE TO THE ABBEY DECISION.
UM, THIS IS, UH, AGAIN A FAIRLY RECENT OPINION.
I THINK IT'S MAY OF 20, 21, BUT JUSTICE, CHIEF JUSTICE WIEMER WRITES ON HIS CONCURRING OPINION.
ZEALOUS ADVOCACY MUST BE TEMPERED WITH THE OBLIGATION OF AN ATTORNEY TO SERVE AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT.
AND WE'LL TRY AND DISCUSS THAT CASE A LITTLE BIT MORE AS WE MOVE THROUGH THE MATERIALS AND THIS HOUR WE HAVE TOGETHER.
BUT AGAIN, I DON'T, I ALWAYS WANT TO DISCUSS THAT BECAUSE IT'S WHAT YOU ALWAYS GET BACK WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR.
I'LL ALSO MENTION TO YOU THAT I QUOTED THE, UM, WOLVES, NOT THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
I QUOTED THE LOUISIANA CODE OF PROFESSIONALISM IN YOUR MATERIALS.
I TEND TO ALWAYS DO THAT WHEN I DO A PROFESSIONALISM MATERIAL.
AND YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY, BECAUSE IT FORCES ME TO READ IT AND REMIND MYSELF HOW I'M SUPPOSED TO BE ACTING.
WHAT'S THE APPROPRIATE WAY FOR ME TO ACT.
AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ IT AGAIN TOO, BECAUSE IT JUST SORT OF REMINDS US, YOU KNOW, IT'S SORT OF LIKE WHEN YOU SAY YOUR PRAYERS AT NIGHT, IT BRINGS YOU, IT ORIENTS, YOU BRINGS YOU TO WHERE YOU NEED TO BE AND HELPS YOU TO KEEP FOCUSED ON WHAT'S THE APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR.
SO THOSE ARE IN YOUR MATERIALS.
I HAD TALKED AGAIN, I JUMPED TO THE CONCURRENCE BEFORE I DID, UM, TO THE DESK, TO THE ACTUAL DISCUSSION OF THE ABERDEEN CASE.
BUT BASICALLY ABERDEEN WAS SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR A YEAR AND A DAY BASED ON HER REPRESENTATION OF A CLIENT IN A PATERNITY DISPUTE.
AND OBVIOUSLY THOSE TYPE OF CASES ARE GOING TO BE EMOTIONAL.
AND I'M GOING TO DISCUSS THIS AGAIN IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL AS WE MOVE THROUGH SOME OF THE EXAMPLES, BUT IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT FOR US AS ATTORNEYS TO REMEMBER, WE ARE NOT THE PARTY TO THE LITIGATION.
AND SOMETIMES WHEN EVERYONE'S EMOTIONAL AND THEY'RE FIGHTING, IT'S OUR JOB TO BE THE ONES WHO MAINTAIN THE COMPOSURE AND THE DECORUM OF THE COURT.
SO IF WE START TAKING THINGS PERSONALLY AND WE STARTED BECOMING LIKE THE PARTY, RIGHT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO LOSE OUR FOCUS AND WE'RE GOING TO LOSE SIGHT OF WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO BEHAVE.
SO REMEMBER, THIS IS NOT YOUR CASE, THIS IS YOUR CLIENT'S CASE AND YOUR JOB WHEN YOUR CLIENT IS STRUGGLING TO MAINTAIN COMPOSURE, BECAUSE SOMETHING IS PARTICULARLY TENSE OR EXTREMELY, IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO THEM, RIGHT? YOU MUST MAINTAIN YOUR COMPOSURE AND YOUR PROFESSIONALISM IN YOUR INTERACTIONS.
UM, I MENTIONED EARLIER JUSTICE CRIGHTON BEING VERY VOCAL ABOUT HIS DISSATISFACTION WITH ATTORNEYS WHO ARE NOT, UM, RESPONSIVE TO DISCIPLINARY DISCIPLINARY COMPLAINTS AND OR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERS OF THE COURT JUSTICE.
CRIDEN ALSO SPOKE IN HIS CON, UM, IN HIS OPINION, CONCURRING OPINION ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF ABDI AND THE RECENT ABBIE DISCIPLINARY CASE AND WHY HE THOUGHT HER ACTIONS WERE INAPPROPRIATE.
I'M GOING TO SHARE WITH YOU, UM, THOSE OF YOU DON'T HAVE THE MATERIALS IN FRONT OF YOU.
SOME OF THE MORE RELEVANT LANGUAGE THAT, THAT HE SHARED AND JUSTICE CRYING ROAD AFTER RECEIVING AN UNSUCCESSFUL RESULT FOR A CLIENT AND WITHOUT A SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE, BUT HER OWN INCOMPETENT REPRESENTATION, RESPONDENT LAUNCHED A PUBLIC AND DEFAMATORY TIRADE AGAINST SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY, ALLEGING THAT THEY MANEUVERED COLLUDED AND CONSPIRED TO COMMIT NEFARIOUS ACTS AGAINST HER CLIENT.
RESPONDENT HAS REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE WRONGFULNESS OF HER ACTIONS AND HAS DISPLAYED NO REMORSE WHEN AN ATTORNEY AND I'M JUMPING AROUND IN THE QUOTE, WHEN AN ATTORNEY INTENTIONALLY CAUSES ACCUSATIONS TO BE PUBLISHED, WHICH HE KNOWS TO BE FALSE OR IN THE EXERCISE OF ORDINARY CARE SHOULD KNOW TO BE FALSE.
HE INVITE HE'S IN VIOLATION OF THE, OR SHE IS IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, IMPORTANTLY, AND THIS IS SO IMPORTANT.
AND WE SEE THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THE RESPONDENT, MS. ABNEY ON BEHALF OF HER CLIENT HAD AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO SEEK APPELLATE REVIEW, WHICH IS FAVORED IN THE LAW.
INSTEAD, SHE CHOSE TO IGNORE THE MOST BASIC PROCEDURAL VEHICLES PROVIDED TO SEEK RELIEF FOR HER CLIENT, HER AGGRIEVED CLIENT.
SO ONCE AGAIN, IF YOU FEEL THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT WAS WRONG, WHAT IS THE REMEDY? THIS IS VERY BASIC, BUT YOU SEE THIS HAPPENING OVER AND OVER AGAIN, YOU APPEAL IT.
IF YOUR CLIENT'S POSITION IS STRONG AND YOU'VE DONE YOUR JOB AT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL, YOU'VE CREATED AN ADEQUATE RECORD REGARDING THE FACTS, RIGHT? AND YOU PRESENT
[01:10:01]
YOUR ARGUMENT, BOTH IN YOUR BRIEFING AND IN YOUR ARGUMENT TO THE COURT, YOU SHOULDN'T EVEN BE GETTING INTO THE NITPICKING OF ATTACKS ON THE JUDGE AND OPPOSING COUNSEL ON A PERSONAL LEVEL.WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE ARGUING THE RECORD AND THE LAW.
I'M GOING TO TAKE A BREAK TO GIVE YOU THE IMPORTANT LOGIN INFORMATION OR THE INFORMATION FOR YOU TO GET CREDIT FOR THIS PRESENTATION.
IT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE LAST HOUR.
AND FOR THIS PRESENTATION, THE MAGIC WORDS ARE HAPPY DAYS, HAPPY DAYS.
SO AGAIN, SOMETIMES YOU GET A LITTLE BIT OF INSIGHT INTO HOW PARTICULAR JUSTICES OR THE CHIEF JUSTICE FEEL THROUGH THEIR USE OF THE CONCURRENCES AND OR THE DISSENTS.
AND SO DON'T NOT READ, THOSE ARE, I SHOULD SAY, LET ME SAY IT BETTER.
READ THOSE TWO WHEN YOU READ A FULL OPINION, BECAUSE IT CAN BE, UM, IT CAN BE INSTRUCTIVE.
I WANT TO TALK WITH YOU ABOUT SOME PERSONAL EXPERIENCES I'VE HAD AS AN INVESTIGATOR AND OR PROSECUTOR, UM, DISCIPLINARY PROSECUTOR.
AND, UM, NORMALLY DURING THIS TIME, I WOULD ASK, ASK FOR COMMENTARY FROM THE AUDIENCE, BUT SINCE SO MANY OF ARE REMOTE, INSTEAD, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU MY THOUGHTS, WHAT WAS GOING THROUGH MY MIND AND SOME OF THESE THINGS I'M GOING TO SHARE WITH YOU.
UM, YOU MAY FIND TO BE A LITTLE BIT OFFENSIVE.
I'LL TRY NOT TO USE PROFANITY WHEN I TALK, BUT THESE ARE THINGS THAT I'VE ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED, UM, MYSELF, UM, AS AN OPPOSING COUNSEL.
AND, UM, AND I'M GOING TO SHARE WITH YOU, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, AS I SAID, MY OPINION OF WHAT TOOK PLACE FOR ME AND PERHAPS THIS IS BECAUSE I, I TEND TO, UM, I DO TEND TO BE SYMPATHETIC TO PEOPLE PERHAPS BECAUSE I HAVE MY OWN TEMPER THAT I HAVE TO CONTROL.
UM, PERHAPS BECAUSE I'M A BIT SEASONED BECAUSE I'VE BEEN IN THE PROFESSION FOR A WHILE, BUT I'M AWFUL.
I'M OFTEN SYMPATHETIC TO PEOPLE WHEN THEY ARE DISCOURTEOUS TO ME, UNPROFESSIONAL TO ME, UM, EVEN, UM, UH, A LITTLE BIT ABUSIVE, ALTHOUGH THAT'S A STRONG WORD, I DON'T MEAN IT IN THAT SENSE, BUT, UM, EVEN THOUGH I MAY BE SYMPATHETIC TO YOUR PLIGHT, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY EXCUSE THE BEHAVIOR AND THE BEHAVIOR HAS TO BE DEALT WITH ACCORDINGLY.
SO I HAVE HAD AN OCCASION WHERE I HAD A RESPONDENT, UM, WITH MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS AND THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT SUBMITTING INITIAL RESPONSES.
WE TALKED ABOUT THAT IN DETAIL DURING THE ETHICS PRESENTATION.
SO THE RESPONDENT WAS SERVED WITH A SUBPOENA TO APPEAR AT A SWORN STATEMENT AND THE RESPONDENT APPEARED.
AND, UM, I BEGAN ASKING THE RESPONDENT QUESTIONS FIRST ABOUT WHY ARE YOU NOT RESPONDING, BUT THEN ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT.
AND IT WAS THE MOST BIZARRE THING THAT YOU WERE CHARGED.
THE RESPONDENT WAS GIVING ME ANSWERS, BUT I HAD DONE MY OWN INVESTIGATION.
AND I HAD DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT ESTABLISHED THAT SOME OF THE ANSWERS I WAS GETTING WERE NOT TRUTHFUL.
AND, UM, AND IT WAS IN WRITING.
SO WHEN I WOULD ASK A QUESTION AND THE ATTORNEY WOULD RESPOND WITH SOMETHING THAT I HAD DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REFUTED, WHAT WAS BEING SAID TO ME, I THEN PRESENTED TO THE ATTORNEY.
I SAID, WELL, I HAVE THIS DOCUMENT HERE.
LET ME LET YOU LOOK AT IT AND READ IT KIND OF LIKE YOU WOULD IN COURT.
RIGHT? AND SEE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE YOUR RESPONSE.
AND I SHARED THE DOCUMENT WITH THE ATTORNEY AND THEN THE ATTORNEY RATHER RANDOMLY SAID, WHY ARE YOU SCREAMING AT ME? AND I, I LOOKED AT HIM AND HE GOES, STOP SCREAMING AT ME.
IT WAS ALMOST LIKE YOU WERE IN THIS OTHER WORLD.
AND I LOOK OVER AT THE COURT REPORTER AND THE CORPORATE LOOKS AT ME AND HE GOES, I'M NOT GOING TO SIT HERE.
IF YOU CONTINUE TO SCREAM AT ME LIKE YOU'RE DOING NOW, LISTEN, I'M LOUD.
I MEAN, I HAVE COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE SAT NEXT DOOR TO ME, WHO WILL SAY, SUSAN, PLEASE, I'VE GOT TO DO A PHONE CALL.
DON'T TALK TO ANYBODY FOR THE NEXT 45 MINUTES.
SO I WANT YOU TO KNOW I'M A LOUD PERSON, BUT I PROMISED YOU I WAS NOT MAD.
YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS GRIEVING, BUT I THOUGHT ABOUT IT AFTERWARDS.
AND YOU KNOW, YOUR FIRST THOUGHT, WELL, I MEAN, AM I DEALING WITH A MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS? YOU KNOW, I DON'T, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH, BUT THEN IT OCCURRED TO ME.
SO WHAT THIS ATTORNEY WAS DOING WAS CREATING HIS OWN, HIS OR HER OWN NARRATIVE REGARDING WHAT WAS TRANSPIRING IN THIS ROOM.
AND REMEMBER WITH THE STATEMENT, IT'S ME, IT'S THE ATTORNEY.
IT'S THE COURT REPORTER, THE COURT REPORTER DOESN'T GIVE COMMENTARY ON BEHAVIOR.
THE COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIBES.
WHAT IS SAID, IS THAT AN ETHICS VIOLATION? I MEAN, I GUESS ANYTHING CAN BE AN ETHICS VIOLATION IF YOU TRY HARD ENOUGH, RIGHT? MISREPRESENTATION 8.4.
DON'T ASK ME THE SUBSECTION, BUT THAT'S MORE OF A MATTER OF PROFESSIONALISM, RIGHT? WHY ARE YOU DOING THAT? IF, IF YOU FIND YOURSELF IN AN UNCOMFORTABLE POSITION, I'M RESPECTFUL OF WHY THIS PERSON FELT CHALLENGED AND PERHAPS UNCOMFORTABLE,
[01:15:01]
BUT WE DON'T CREATE FAKE NARRATIVES ON THE LAW, RIGHT? WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THAT.SO THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT I HAD HAPPENED.
SO WHAT DO YOU DO IN THE FUTURE? WELL, NEEDLESS TO SAY IT, CERTAIN ATTORNEYS TAKE UP A LOT OF OUR TIME BECAUSE THEY'LL GET MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS.
AND AGAIN, THIS ATTORNEY HAD ANOTHER COMPLAINT COME THROUGH AND I WOULD NOT, IT'S NOT THE TYPE OF COMPLAINT WHERE I WOULD NORMALLY GO ON TO THE EXPENSE AND THE TIME ASSOCIATED WITH A SWORN STATEMENT.
BUT I KNEW THIS ATTORNEY WAS CALLING.
HE WAS REPRESENTING HIMSELF, WOULD WANT TO TALK TO YOU ON THE PHONE, BUT I DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE SPEAKING TO HIM, TO HIM ON THE PHONE, BECAUSE IF HE WILL CREATE HIS OWN NARRATIVE, I NEED TO AT LEAST HAVE THE BENEFIT OF A RECORD BEING MAINTAINED.
RIGHT? SO NOW WHENEVER I WOULD ENGAGE WITH THAT ATTORNEY, I WOULDN'T TALK TO HIM ON THE PHONE.
I WOULD ONLY DO IT IF THERE WOULD BE OTHER PERSONS PRESENT, EITHER WITH HIM OR WITH ME, OR IF WE WERE IN THE PRESENCE OF A STATEMENT.
SO SOMETIMES WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE EXHIBITING WHAT WE PERCEIVE TO BE UNPROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR, AND SOME OF YOU MAY DISAGREE, YOU MAY NOT THINK THAT TO BE UNPROFESSIONAL, WE CAN'T CHANGE OTHER PEOPLE'S BEHAVIOR, BUT WE CAN CHANGE OUR OWN.
SO YOU CAN TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT YOURSELF IN, IN FUTURE INTERACTIONS.
ANOTHER INSTANCE I HAD WAS I HAD AN OPPOSING COUNSEL.
UM, THIS WAS PRE DURING AN INVESTIGATION PROCESS AND THINGS WERE GETTING A LITTLE BIT HEATED AND OPPOSING COUNSEL.
I, UM, REFERRED TO ME BY, UM, UH, I'M NOT NICE WORD.
THAT'S SOMETIMES IT'S USED FOR WOMEN AND I'M FROM A DIFFERENT GENERATION.
AND I THINK MY GENERATION, I ALWAYS TELL PEOPLE THIS, I'M STARTING, STARTING TO FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY TALK ABOUT THE GENERATION GAP.
I'M STARTING TO FEEL IT THE LAST FEW YEARS.
AND BACK WHEN I WAS A WOMAN, A YOUNG GIRL IN THE EIGHTIES, WE WERE GROWING UP AND, UM, I WAS IN ACCOUNTING AND AT THE TIME ACCOUNTING WAS PREDOMINANTLY MALE BACK THEN, BELIEVE IT OR NOT.
AND LAW WAS PREDOMINANTLY MALE.
BY THE TIME I GOT TO LAW SCHOOL BECAUSE THEY WENT STRAIGHT THROUGH AND, YOU KNOW, OLDER WOMEN WHO WOULD MENTOR US WOULD TEACH US HOW WE SHOULD DEAL WITH WHAT WE PERCEIVE TO BE INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR BY MEN.
I THINK THAT NOW IT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE, WHAT I WAS KIND OF MENTORED AND TOLD.
SO WHEN, UM, I WAS REFERRED TO THAT WAY, UM, I, I DEALT WITH IT MY OWN WAY, BUT I CHOSE NOT TO LET IT ESCALATE.
YOU KNOW, I KIND OF LAUGHED IT OFF.
THAT WAS MY WAY OF COPING WITH IT.
IT WAS STILL OFFENSIVE, BUT I LAUGHED IT OFF BECAUSE I DIDN'T.
I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, I WANT THIS ISN'T ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT ME OR MY FEELINGS ABOUT YOU.
THIS IS ABOUT A DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING.
OR AT THAT POINT A DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION, DON'T LET IT ESCALATE.
DON'T LET PEOPLE PROVOKE YOU INTO YOU DOING SOMETHING UNPROFESSIONAL.
AND IT'S AMAZING HOW IN THIS BUSINESS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL ON EDGE.
ALL WE DO IS FIGHT, RIGHT? WE FIGHT.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRAINED TO DO.
LET IT BE THE ISSUE YOU'RE FIGHTING.
LET IT BE THE FACTS YOU'RE FIGHTING.
DON'T LET IT BE YOUR OPPOSING COUNSEL.
WHEN SOMEONE TRIES TO ESCALATE IT INTO AN UNPROFESSIONAL EXCHANGE.
ANOTHER TIME I WAS TOLD THAT I COULD NOT BE TRUSTED, THAT MY WORD WAS NOT GOOD.
AND THAT THIS WAS BY AN OPPOSING COUNSEL.
AND THAT IF THIS ATTORNEY EVER WAS GOING TO DEAL WITH ME AGAIN, THEY WERE GOING TO WRITE EVERYTHING DOWN AGAIN, IS THAT UNPROFESSIONAL BEING ACCUSED OF THAT IS TO BE BEING ACCUSED OF BEING UNPROFESSIONAL, CORRECT.
WELL, SO WHAT DO YOU RESPOND? YOU'RE NOW BEING ACCUSED OF SOME UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND ARGUABLY ON NOW THE PERSON AT FAULT.
AND SO I'M THINKING TO MYSELF FIRST OFF, HAVE I MISREPRESENTED SOMETHING TO THIS PERSON? CAUSE I ALWAYS QUESTION MYSELF TOO, BUT MY RESPONSE TO THAT WAS YOU SHOULD WRITE DOWN EVERYTHING THAT WE DISCUSS YOU SHOULD.
AND IF THERE'S EVER ANY DOUBT AS TO WHAT THE AGREEMENT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN, YOU SHOULD REDUCE IT TO WRITING AND YOU SHOULD SEND IT TO THE OPPOSING COUNSEL SO THAT THEY CAN REVIEW IT.
AND IF THEY CHOOSE TO CHALLENGE IT, THEY CAN CHALLENGE IT AT THAT TIME.
AND THEN I SAID, AND I OWN, I WANT YOU TO BE ASSURED THAT I WRITE DOWN EVERY DISCUSSION WE HAVE.
AND AT THAT POINT I PULLED OUT MY NOTES WHERE I PULLED TO THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD.
AND I HAD ALMOST TAKEN DICTATION OF THE CONVERSATION.
NOW, DOES THAT MEAN THAT I WON'T MAKE A MISTAKE? OBVIOUSLY I CAN MAKE A MISTAKE.
OBVIOUSLY I CAN MISHEAR SOMETHING OR WORSE OR MORE COMMONLY SOMETHING WILL BE SAID, BUT WE'LL GIVE IT TWO DIFFERENT MEANINGS, RIGHT? BUT BY DOING THAT, BY DOCUMENTING IT BY CONFIRMING, BY NOT BECOMING ANGRY, WE CAN GET TO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY DISCUSSED AND WHAT WAS OUR INTENTION.
AND WE CAN BUILD TRUST WITH OUR OPPOSING COUNSEL BECAUSE EVERYTHING FLOWS SMOOTHER.
IF YOU AND OPPOSING COUNSEL TRUST EACH OTHER, NOT TO BE DISHONEST, NOT TO MISREPRESENT, TO BOTH HAVE THE INTENTION OF SEEKING THE RIGHT RESULT, EVEN IF YOUR RESULT IN MY RESULTS, AREN'T THE SAME.
[01:20:01]
OF THE THINGS WE DEAL WITH, WHETHER IT BE THE RESPONDENT ATTORNEY.AND AGAIN, I TALKED ABOUT THIS AS WHITES.
IT'S KIND OF A STRONG ISSUE IN OUR OFFICE FROM AN ETHICS PERSPECTIVE OF, AND A PROFESSIONALISM EXPECT, BUT PERSPECTIVE, EXCUSE ME, IS REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS.
WHEN WE ASKED FOR AN INITIAL RESPONSE, A SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE DOCUMENTATION, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR THE ATTORNEY, EITHER THE ATTORNEY UNDER INVESTIGATION OR THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THAT ATTORNEY TO ASK FOR ADDITIONAL TIME PEOPLE HAVE DOCKETS.
PEOPLE HAVE OTHER OBLIGATIONS.
IT'S CERTAINLY NOT YOUR ONLY CASE.
PICK UP THE PHONE REQUEST AN EXTENSION, DROP AN EMAIL, SEND A LETTER PROFESSIONAL COURTESY.
DON'T JUST DISAPPEAR, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE REPRESENTING SOMEONE.
AND IF YOU'VE REQUESTED AN EXTENSION, TRY AND RESPOND WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD, IF YOU REQUEST EXTENSION AFTER EXTENSION, AFTER EXTENSION, AT SOME POINT, THE BELIEF BECOMES THAT YOU'RE NOT REALLY GOING TO PUT PEN TO PAPER AND IT GOES BACK AGAIN, IS IT BECAUSE THEY'RE INCAPABLE? IS IT BECAUSE THEY ARE UNWILLING? OR IS IT BECAUSE THEY'RE DISHONEST? AND ONCE AGAIN, THAT'S AN ASSESSMENT THAT HAS TO BE MADE.
ANOTHER PROFESSIONALISM ISSUE THAT WE DEAL WITH SOMETIMES IS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE EVER HAD THIS HAPPEN.
I MEAN, I'M TALKING ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF MY DISCIPLINARY MATTERS, BUT IT CERTAINLY HAPPENS.
OTHERWISE I HAD THIS HAPPEN ONCE AND I'D KIND OF LIKE COMMENTARY ON THIS ONE, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN TODAY.
WHERE AN ATTORNEY MAILED ME, THEY FILED A BRIEF AND THEIR CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE SAID THAT ON THE SAME DAY THAT THEY FILED IT WITH THE COURT, THAT THEY MAILED THE COPY TO THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL.
AND THERE WAS A VERY SHORT TURNAROUND ON THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.
AND ABOUT A WEEK LATER, I GOT THE COPY OF THIS PLEADING THAT HAD BEEN FILED.
AND SO NOW I'M UNDER THE GUN, RIGHT? AND IT, IT JUST ALWAYS JAMMED UP TO A HOLIDAY.
HAVE YOU ALL EVER HAD THAT HAPPEN JAM UP TO A HOLIDAY? YOU GOT 10 DAYS, THE TOM'S RUNNING.
UNFORTUNATELY THE DEADLINE DOESN'T FALL ON THE LEGAL HOLIDAY, SO YOU DON'T GET THE BENEFIT OF THAT.
BUT LONG STORY SHORT, I WAS, I THOUGHT IT WAS SO ODD.
HOW DID IT, YOU KNOW, THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE SAYS THAT IT WAS MAILED TO ME ON THIS DAY.
I CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS FILED ON THE DAY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.
YOU KNOW, ME, I'M GOING TO GIVE TO PEOPLE THE BENEFIT OF A DOUBT.
SO WE ALWAYS SAY THE ENVELOPES AND I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S TICKLES ME NOW.
THEN THEY MAILED IT FROM ANOTHER STATE.
SO APPARENTLY WHAT THE ATTORNEY HAD DONE, THEY SIGNED THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.
THEY HAND DELIVERED IT TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THEN THEY FLEW TO ANOTHER STATE.
LIKE I THINK IT WAS EITHER NEW MEXICO OR COLORADO.
AND THEN THEY DROPPED IT IN A POST, APPARENTLY A POST OFFICE BOX, ANOTHER STATE AWAY.
WERE THEY COMPLIANT WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER RULE 19? THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR DISCIPLINARY MATTERS IN TERMS OF PROVIDING NOTICE TO OUR OFFICE, YES.
WAS THEIR CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE TRUTHFUL.
I MEAN, WHEN YOU'RE SENDING IT TO THE COURT, YOU MIGHT AS WELL DROP IT IN THE MAILBOX TO US TOO.
SO I ALWAYS POINT THAT OUT BECAUSE IT LEADS ME TO THIS NEXT THING THAT I ALWAYS SAY, IF YOUR POSITION IS SO WEAK, THAT YOU'RE AFRAID FOR ME TO SEE YOUR ARGUMENT, THEN YOU HAVE A BIGGER PROBLEM THAN GETTING IT TO ME TIMELY.
AND THEN THE NEXT THING I SAY IS MY CHILDREN ARE RAISED.
MY RESPONSE WILL BE TIMELY SUBMITTED TO THE COURT.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND.
AND I THINK WE'VE PROBABLY ALL DEALT WITH THAT ON OCCASION.
I'VE HAD ANOTHER OCCASION, YOU KNOW, UM, I'VE MENTIONED THAT THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OR DIFFERENT WERE SUI GENERIS.
THERE ARE PECULIAR PECULIAR RULES IN THERE THAT ARE NOT LIKE REGULAR PRACTICE.
AND ONE OF THE RULES THEY HAVE, AND I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT THIS WAS A LITTLE BIT ODD, BUT ONE OF THE RULES THEY HAVE IS THAT BEFORE YOU FILE A MOTION, YOU LET'S SAY CHARGES ARE PENDING.
YOU'VE GOT DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL ON ONE SIDE, YOU'VE GOT RESPONDENT ON THE OTHER SIDE WITH COUNSEL, THE RULES REQUIRE THAT BEFORE YOU FILE A MOTION, YOU HAVE TO CONTACT OPPOSING COUNSEL OR THE UNREPRESENTED PARTY.
TELL THEM YOU'RE GOING TO FILE THE MOTION AND ASK THEM IF THEY'RE GOING TO OPPOSE IT, OR IF THEY AGREED TO IT.
AND I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT'S KIND OF AN UNNECESSARY STEP BECAUSE YOU JUST ASSUME SOMEONE'S GOING TO OPPOSE YOUR MOTION, RIGHT? THAT WAS MY MINDSET.
AND WHEN THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL FILES MOTIONS WITHOUT THIS REQUIRED CERTIFICATION, THE LAST PARAGRAPH, THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, CERTIFIES THAT ON SUCH AND SUCH A DATE THAT THE BOARD HAS REJECTED THE FILINGS FOR FAILURE TO CERTIFY.
WELL, A LOT OF TIMES, AS I MENTIONED, ALSO, PEOPLE WILL HAVE A COLLEAGUE OR A FRIEND REPRESENT THEM IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING MATTERS, OR THEY WILL REPRESENT
[01:25:01]
THEMSELVES.AND THEY'RE NOT EITHER, OR THEY'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH RULE 19 IN THE PROCESS.
THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE CERTIFICATE.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS I FIND THAT I DO THIS IS I HOPE PROFESSIONAL AND NOT PERCEIVED AS ME SCHOOLING SOMEONE IS I ALWAYS SAY, LOOK, YOU KNOW, HAVE YOU EVER DONE THIS BEFORE? I'LL ASK ATTORNEYS.
AND IF THEY SAY, NO, I'LL SAY YOU MIGHT WANT TO GO READ RULE 19 AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, PULL UP THAT PRACTICE GUIDE ON THE LA DB.ORG WEBSITE.
AND YOU KNOW, I TRY TO POINT THEIR ATTENTION TO IT.
I CAN'T MAKE SOMEONE READ IT, BUT THIS MOTIONS FILED, UM, RIGHT BEFORE THANKSGIVING.
AND I DID GET A TIMELY COPY OF IT.
I GOT THE COPY OF IT THAT THEY FAXED TO ME.
SO THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT I RECEIVED NOTICE OF IT, BUT I FILED MY OPPOSITION.
AND IN MY OPPOSITION, I POINTED OUT THAT THE MOTION WAS NONCOMPLIANT WITH RULE 19.
AND THAT THE ATTORNEY HAD NOT PRIEST HAD NOT CERTIFIED THAT HE HAD CONDUCT CONTACTED OUR OFFICE.
IS THAT NITPICKY ON MY PART? IT IS, BUT THE WOOL'S MANDATORY.
RIGHT? AND THEN I ARGUED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION, BUT IT'S SET THE ATTORNEY, MY OPPOSING COUNSEL OFF BECAUSE I THINK THE OPPOSING COUNSEL WASN'T FAMILIAR WITH THE RULE AND THE OPPOSING COUNSEL THOUGHT THAT I WAS SAYING THAT THEY FILED SOMETHING WITHOUT PROVIDING ME WITH NOTICE, WHICH WAS NOT.
IF, IF THEY'D READ THE RULE, READ MY OPPOSITION, THEY WOULD'VE SEEN THAT.
AND WHEN I GOT THAT, I WILL TELL YOU, YOU KNOW, FIRST YOU'RE A LITTLE ANNOYED BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING YOURSELF WELL, I MEAN, WHAT I SAID WAS TRUE, IT WAS CORRECT.
BUT THEN THERE WAS A PART OF ME THAT WONDERED WAS I WRONG? DID I DO SOMETHING UNPROFESSIONAL BY PUTTING THAT IN THAT THERE HAD NOT BEEN THE CERTIFICATION.
AND YET KNOWING THAT I HAD NOTICE OF THEIR MOTION AND THAT I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION, IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING ME, IT CAUSED ME TO THINK, MAYBE IN THIS INSTANCE, I DID SOMETHING UNPROFESSIONAL.
DO YOU, DO YOU FOLLOW WHERE I'M COMING FROM? AS YOU'RE SPEAKING? I MEAN, WE HAVE TO ASSESS OUR OWN BEHAVIOR SOMETIMES.
AND SO IN A SENSE, I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE BY DOING WHAT I DID, IT'S ALMOST AS THOUGH I WAS, AND YOU HEARD ME USE THE TERM EARLIER, SCHOOLING MY OPPOSING COUNSEL, WHICH IN A WAY, IS BEING DISRESPECTFUL WHEN THERE WAS NO NEED FOR DISRESPECT.
SO THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING WHERE I THINK PERHAPS I COULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER LAWYER.
I COULD HAVE BEEN MORE COURTEOUS TO MY OPPOSING COUNSEL.
AND OF COURSE, IN THAT REGARD TO, UM, TO THE RESPONDENT, UH, HIMSELF OR HERSELF, ANOTHER THING I SEE SOMETIMES, UM, NORMALLY IN THE FORM OF COMPLAINTS AND I'M GOING TO TAKE MY JACKET OFF, PLEASE, EXCUSE ME.
SOMETIMES WE'LL RECEIVE COMPLAINTS AGAINST ATTORNEYS AND THE COMPLAINT WILL COME FROM THE OPPOSING PARTY OR THE OPPOSING COUNSEL.
AND THE COMPLAINT WILL ALLEGE THAT THE ATTORNEY I'M GOING TO USE PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT.
LET'S SAY THAT THE PLAINTIFF WILL FILE THE COMPLAINT AGAINST COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT.
AND THEY WILL ALLEGE THAT THE DEFENDANT ENGAGED IN FRIVOLOUS FILINGS WITH THE COURT AND I'LL PULL THE RECORD AND I'LL LOOK AT IT AND I'LL SEE THAT THE FRIVOLOUS FILING WAS AN OPPOSITION.
AND SOMETIMES I'LL SEE THAT THERE'S A CLAIM THAT THERE WAS A FRIVOLOUS FILING.
AND AGAIN, I'M TOUCHING ON ETHICS, BUT I THINK THIS IS A LITTLE BIT BROADER THAN THAT.
AND IT'LL BE THAT A PARTY WAS SUCCESSFUL AT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL.
SO THE OPPOSING PARTY APPEALS IT.
AND IF THE OPPOSING PARTY IS SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL, THEY WILL THEN SAY THAT THE PETITION WAS FRIVOLOUS.
WELL, THEY ALREADY PROVED THEIR CASE AT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL.
SO AT LEAST THE TRIAL COURT, OR PERHAPS A JURY THOUGHT IT WASN'T A FRIVOLOUS CLAIM.
AND SOMETIMES I FEEL WHEN I'M EVALUATING COMPLAINTS, I WONDER, WHY AM I RECEIVING THESE COMPLAINTS FROM OPPOSING COUNSEL? BECAUSE THE WHOLE POINT OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, THIS IS AN ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM.
AND TO BE THE ULTIMATE VICTOR IN A, IN A, UM, A MATTER IN DISPUTE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE OPPOSING PARTY WAS ENGAGED IN A FRIVOLOUS FRIVOLOUS PRACTICE OF LAW.
SO AGAIN, AND THIS COMES UP IN SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE HAVE ARE SOME OF THE CITATIONS I HAVE ON THE MOTIONS TO STRIKE IN THE MATERIALS.
YOUR OPPOSING PARTY HAS THEIR CAUSE OF ACTION.
IF THEY'VE ALREADY MADE THEIR WAY PAST AN EXCEPTION OF NEW CAUSE OF ACTION, AND THEY'VE BEEN VICTORIOUS AT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL, AND THEN YOU WERE ULTIMATELY SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL.
THAT'S A VERY DIFFICULT HURDLE TO PASS, TO SAY THAT
[01:30:01]
BY THEM FILING THE CHARGES OR BY THEM BRINGING THEIR LAWSUIT, THEY ENGAGED IN A FRIVOLOUS PROCEEDING SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU WERE ULTIMATELY VICTORIOUS.I HOPE THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN FOLLOW, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE THE, THE, THE TRAIN RIDE AS I'M GOING THROUGH THE SYSTEM.
BUT THAT IS SOMETHING WE SEEM TO, I SEEM TO BE SEEING MORE OFTEN NOW IN OUR DISCIPLINARY COMPLAINTS.
AND IT'S ODD TO ME, IT'S UNUSUAL.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE EMAIL THAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE THE EMAIL NOTIFICATION, UM, OR THE EMAIL REGISTERED WITH THE LOUISIANA, YOUR REGISTRATION STATEMENT.
THAT'S FILED WITH THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HOW IT CAN BE USED FOR PURPOSES OF NOTICE.
AND I TALKED ABOUT HOW SOMETIMES I WILL USE EMAILS FOR PURPOSES OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH AN OPPOSING COUNSEL OR WITH A RESPONDENT WHO'S REPRESENTING HIMSELF WHEN I SEND EMAILS, UNLESS I FORGET WHEN I SEND EMAILS, I ALWAYS REQUEST DELIVERY RECEIPTS AND READ RECEIPTS.
WHEN, WHEN I SEND THEM, WHEN I RECEIVE EMAILS, I ALWAYS RESPOND RECEIVED.
I USUALLY SAY RECEIVED AND TO BE REVIEWED.
IF SOMEONE REQUESTS A READ RECEIPT, I ALWAYS PROVIDE IT.
NO ONE WILL PROVIDE READ RECEIPTS.
SO I, ESPECIALLY DURING THE PERIOD OF COVID, WHEN WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE NOTICE, BE MINDFUL OF THAT, IT'S A COURTESY, THE ASSUMPTION IS GOING TO BE MADE WITH THE DELIVERY RECEIPT THAT YOU HAD IT CONFIRMED WHEN YOU RECEIVE AN EMAIL COMMUNICATION.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO TAKE A LOT OF TIME.
IF IT'S ASKED FOR, I THINK THIS IS VERY BASIC NOW THAT WE'RE ALL KIND OF REMOTING OUT AND MANY OF US ARE STILL NOT IN OUR OFFICES.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING I WANT TO REMIND YOU OF WHEN I PROSECUTE A CASE AND I'VE SENT AN ATTORNEY, AN EMAIL COMMUNICATION I'VE ASKED FOR A DELIVERY RECEIPT AND A READ RECEIPT.
UM, AND I DON'T GET A READ RECEIPT.
I GET A DELIVERY CONFIRMATION.
I DON'T GET A READ RECEIPT BACK.
I SET FORTH ALL OF MY ATTEMPTS TO ONCE AGAIN PROVIDE CONSTRUCTIVE AND ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE.
AND MY LINE IS, AND ALTHOUGH REQUESTED A DELIVERY RECEIPT OF A READ RECEIPT WAS NOT PROVIDED, AND I WILL LET THE HEARING COMMITTEE, THE BOARD AND ULTIMATELY THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT DRAW, WHATEVER CONCLUSIONS THEY WANT FROM THAT, BUT NOT PROVIDING THE READ RECEIPTS.
DOESN'T, UM, PREVENT THINGS FROM GOING FORWARD.
ONCE AGAIN, IT JUST DELAYS IT.
AND YOU'RE STACKING, UH, YOU'RE STACKING INFORMATION IN PARTICULAR IN REGARD TO FAILURE TO COOPERATE.
UM, I ALREADY MENTIONED THAT I AM QUICK TO TEMPER AND IT'S A BAD QUALITY.
IT'S SOMETHING I STRUGGLE WITH.
I THINK A LOT OF US ARE, ARE, ARE QUICK TO TEMPER.
I THINK IT'S KIND OF THE NATURE OF THE BEAST.
I ALWAYS TELL PEOPLE WHEN I USED TO TEACH, I, I TELL PEOPLE WE'RE SORT OF BEING TRAINED TO BE FIGHTERS.
HOPEFULLY WE'RE BEING TRAINED TO BE, UM, FIREFIGHTERS, COURTEOUS FIGHTERS, BUT NONETHELESS, WE'RE BEING TRAINED TO BE SOMEONE ELSE'S VOICE, UH, AS LAWYERS.
AND SOMETIMES IT'S DIFFICULT, YOU KNOW, TO WALK AWAY FROM THAT.
UM, WHEN I USED TO TEACH, UH, I WOULD USE MY, MY TEACHING VOICE KIND OF LIKE I'M DOING TODAY.
AND WHEN I WOULD WALK AWAY FROM THE FRONT OF THE CLASSROOM AND OUT INTO THE HALLWAY AND A STUDENT WOULD ASK ME A QUESTION I WOULD CONSIDER, I WOULD CONTINUE TO YELL AT THEM IN MY TEACHER VOICE.
AND I FEEL SOMETIMES THAT AS ATTORNEYS, WE DO THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE USING, WE'RE USED TO STAFF WHERE WE KNOW THAT WE'RE TO SOUND CONFIDENT AND ASSURED AND PREPARED AND, UM, AND STRONG.
AND IT'S HARD TO TURN THAT OFF WHEN, WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT AND BEING QUICK TO TEMPER AND SOMETIMES OVERREACTING TO A SITUATION, I CAN MAKE BAD DECISIONS AND BAD CHOICES.
I THINK WITH AGE I'VE MELLOWED A LITTLE BIT, BUT FOR ME, I RELY ON MY COLLEAGUES AND IF I DON'T WANT TO RELY ON MY COLLEAGUES, I RELY ON ON TIME.
SO WHEN I'M ANGRY OR AGITATED OR OVERWHELMED OR STRESSED, AND I HAVE TO RESPOND TO SOMEONE AND IN WRITING OR ON A TELEPHONE CALL, IF IT'S IN WRITING, I WILL WRITE OUT MY SCRIPT AND I'LL SHOW THAT TO A COLLEAGUE.
AND I'LL SAY, UM, IS THIS DISRESPECTFUL? IS THIS DISCOURTEOUS? AND MORE OFTEN IN THE PAST, IT'S, I'VE GOTTEN BETTER.
THEY'LL SAY, WHY DON'T YOU JUST CHANGE ONE WORD, THIS ONE WORD.
IF YOU TAKE OUT THIS ONE WORD WILL MAKE ALL
[01:35:01]
THE DIFFERENCE.AND I HEED THE ADVICE OF MY COLLEAGUES, UM, ESPECIALLY THE ONES WHO I FIND TO BE MORE EVEN TEMPERED THAN I AM.
AND IF I DON'T HAVE A COLLEAGUE OR IF IT'S NOT SOMETHING I CAN SHOW A COLLEAGUE OR I'LL ASK THEM TO REVIEW OR RIGHT BEFORE I ACTUALLY SUBMIT IT, UM, I RELY ON TIME.
AND WHEN I WORKED AT THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR 20 SOME ODD YEARS, ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS TAUGHT AS AN APPELLATE WRITER IS GIVE YOURSELF ENOUGH TIME TO WRITE SOMETHING AND THEN SET IT ASIDE FOR 24 HOURS AND THEN REREAD IT BECAUSE AFTER 24 HOURS, WHEN YOU REREAD IT, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IT IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT.
YOU'RE GOING TO READ IT AS A READER RATHER THAN AS THE CREATOR OF THE DOCUMENT, THE MEMO, THE LETTER, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE.
AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS SUCH EXCELLENT ADVICE, NOT ONLY FOR BEING ABLE TO SUCCINCTLY STATE A LEGAL ISSUE OR POSITION, BUT IT'S ALSO EXCELLENT ADVICE IF YOU'RE TRYING TO BE RESPECTFUL OF YOUR OPPOSING COUNSEL OR THE OPPOSING PARTY OR OF THE COURT.
SO SOMETIMES WE DON'T HAVE TIME.
WE DON'T HAVE THE 24 HOURS, BUT IF YOU CAN AFFORD YOURSELF THAT TIME, UM, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO MAKE USE OF IT.
UM, AND, AND WHEN YOU READ IT WITH A NEW EYE, UM, IT'S NOT ONLY GOING TO BE A BETTER STATEMENT OF LAW AND POSITION, BUT IT'LL ALSO BE A MORE COURTEOUS, MORE RESPECTFUL, MORE PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATION OF YOUR THOUGHTS ON BEHALF OF YOUR CLIENT.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO.
YOU KNOW, I WORKED FOR A LONG TIME AT THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL.
AND, UM, IT WAS A GREAT JOB AND I FEEL VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE HAD IT AS LONG AS IT DID.
AND AS A RESEARCHER, I TRY, WHEN I DO PROFESSIONALISM, I TRY TO FIND SOMETHING CONCRETE OTHER THAN JUST, YOU KNOW, SUSAN'S OPINION ON STUFF, BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT OPINIONS.
BUT, UM, SO WHAT I DID IS IN THE RULES OF COURT FOR BOTH THE COURT OF APPEAL AND FOR THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT, THEY TALK ABOUT OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE AND BRIEFS, AND THEY TALK ABOUT MOVING FOR MOTIONS TO STRIKE, UM, UNPROFESSIONAL DISCOURTEOUS LANGUAGE FROM BRIEFS.
I MEAN, REALLY IT'S THE HARDER PROFESSIONALISM, RIGHT? AND SO I DID A WESTLAW QUERY OLD SCHOOL, YOU KNOW, UH, 1980S, UH, WHERE I DID MY, UM, I USED MY CONNECTORS.
AND, UM, I DID A QUERY WHERE I TRIED TO FIND EVERY CASE I COULD FROM THE APPELLATE COURT AND LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT, WHERE THERE WAS COMMENTARY ARISING FROM THESE RULES OF THESE RULES OF COURT.
AND I, I PULLED THE EXCERPTS AND I PRESENTED THEM TO YOU.
AND WHEN I WORKED AT THE COURT OF APPEAL, I HAD THE BENEFIT OF ACTUALLY READING THE BRIEFS THAT WERE OFFENSIVE.
BUT WHEN YOU READ THE OPINIONS THEMSELVES, THEY DON'T NECESSARILY PUT THE OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE IN THE OPINION, BECAUSE TO RESTATE THE OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE, RIGHT, IS TO PERPETUATE THE DISRESPECT ON THE OPPOSING COUNSEL OR THE DISRESPECT TO THE OPPOSING PARTY OR THE DISRESPECT TO THE COURT.
SO SOMETIMES WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF DETAIL, BUT THE COURT DOES PROVIDE DESCRIPTION.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO MENTION TO YOU GUYS, UM, WELL, BEFORE I GET INTO SOME OF THE SPECIFICS, I THINK IT'S TIME FOR ME TO PROVIDE, IS IT TIME FOR ME TO PROVIDE THE MAGIC PHRASE AT, I WAS TOLD AT 2 45, OKAY.
BEFORE I GET INTO SOME OF THE SPECIFICS, THE MAGIC PHRASE IS SANFORD AND SON.
SO FOR YOU TO GET CLE CREDIT FOR THIS ONE, OUR PROFESSIONALISM, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE PHRASES HAPPY DAYS AND SANFORD AND SON, AND FOR SITTING FOR THIS LONG, EVERYONE SHOULD GET THEIR CREDIT.
BUT, UM, I THOUGHT THIS WAS SUCH INTERESTING LANGUAGE IN THE SUPREME COURT'S ROLE.
AND I NEVER, I MEAN, I SHOULDN'T SAY THIS, I'D NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE.
AND I QUOTED IN YOUR MATERIALS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT PAGE CAUSE I'M WORKING FROM MY NOTES RATHER THAN FROM THE MATERIALS THAT WERE EMAILED, BUT THE COURT SAYS ANY VIOLATION OF THAT.
IT'S ABOUT THE LANGUAGE USE IN ANY BRIEF OR DOCUMENT FILED IN THIS COURT MUST BE COURTEOUS AND FREE FROM INSULTING CRITICISM OF ANY PERSON INDIVIDUALLY, ARTIFICIALLY OR OF ANY CLASS OR ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS ARE OF ANY COURT OF JUSTICE OR ANY OTHER INSTITUTION.
AND HERE'S THE SENTENCE THAT I FIND SO POWERFUL, ANY VIOLATION OF THIS ROLE.
SO SHALL SUBJECT THE AUTHOR OR AUTHORS OF THE BRIEF OR DOCUMENT TO THE HUMILIATION OF HAVING THE BRIEF OR DOCUMENT RETURNED AND TO PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT.
SO THE COURT EXPRESSLY SAYS, THEY'RE GOING TO HUMILIATE YOU.
IF YOU USE DISCOURTEOUS LANGUAGE IN YOUR PLEADINGS OR YOUR BRIEFS THAT ARE FILED WITH THE COURT.
AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS JUST SUCH AN INTERESTING, UM, AN INTERESTING SENTENCE.
AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE'S AWARE OF IT.
[01:40:01]
OF 10 MINUTES WE HAVE, SINCE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A LOT OF QUESTIONING WITH SO MANY OF YOU BEING REMOTE.UM, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF MY OBSERVATIONS ON SOME OF THE CASES THAT I QUOTED AND IN THE MATERIALS THAT I GAVE YOU.
AND AGAIN, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE MATERIALS, I APOLOGIZE.
THESE ARE JUST THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM READING SOME OF THOSE, UM, COURT OPINIONS.
AND ONE OF THEM I ALWAYS SPOKE ABOUT, I MEAN, I ALREADY SPOKE ABOUT, AND JUST BECAUSE A JUDGE RULES UNFAVORABLE TO THE POSITION YOU'VE ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF YOUR CLIENT, DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY.
WHEN A JUDGE RULES UNFAVORABLY TO YOUR LEGAL POSITION, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL IN LOUISIANA.
YOU MIGHT EVEN HAVE EVEN HAVE THE RIGHT.
IF IT'S AN INTERLOCUTORY RULING TO SEEK SUPERVISORY REVIEW, YOU MAY NOT GET IT, BUT YOU CAN AT LEAST SEEK IT.
BUT WITH A FINAL JUDGMENT, YOU CERTAINLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEEK APPEAL AND APPEALING.
THE DECISION IS WHAT YOUR REMEDY IS WHEN YOU APPEAL THE DECISION.
ONCE AGAIN, I URGE YOU TO ARGUE THE RECORD AS CREATED AT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL AND YOUR POSITIONS ON THE LAW DON'T MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS AGAINST THE JUDGE.
DON'T MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS ON THE OPPOSING COUNSEL, AND CERTAINLY DON'T MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS ON THE OPPOSING PARTY, FOCUS ON THE LAW AND THE RECORD AS ESTABLISHED.
I CITE TO, UM, JUDGE KOONS CONCURRENCE IN THE ALLEN TO BE CHILDREN'S CASE.
THIS IS FROM 2014, WHERE COUNSEL WAS, UM, ADDRESSED FOR HIS INAPPROPRIATE AND DISPARAGING REMARKS AGAINST THE TRIAL COURT.
HE ACTUALLY MADE A COMMENT ABOUT, UM, THE, THE PARTY, THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE PARTY, MADE A COMMENT ABOUT ATTEMPTS TO, UM, RETAIN AN IMPROPER FINE, UM, IN THE, IN THE INSTITUTIONAL SLUSH FUND.
AND JUDGE KUHN POINTED OUT, NOT ONLY ARE YOU ATTACKING THE JUDGE YOU WERE BEFORE, BUT WITH THAT UNNECESSARY COMMENT, YOU'VE ATTACKED EVERY JUDGE IN THE, UH, IN THE DISTRICT, IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.
SO, UM, HE REFERRED TO THE LANGUAGE AS HIGHLY OFFENSIVE AND LACKING THE BASIC DECORUM EXPECTED OF A MEMBER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO ATTACK THE JUDGE WHO WILL AGAINST YOU IN ADVANCING YOUR ARGUMENT.
AND WHEN I WAS AN APPELLATE ATTORNEY WITH THE COURT, WHEN THE ONLY ARGUMENT WE WERE PRESENTED WAS AN ATTACK ON THE JUDGE AND AN ATTACK ON OPPOSING COUNSEL AND AN ATTACK ON THE OPPOSING PARTY.
WE FIGURED THAT THAT THE PERSON SEEKING THE APPEAL DID NOT HAVE A VERY GOOD LEGAL ARGUMENT.
AND THE SAD THING IS THEY MIGHT HAVE, BUT THAT PERSONALIZATION BLIND YOU TO WHAT THE REAL POSITION IS.
YOU'RE DISTRACTED BY IT AS A JUDICIAL, UM, ATTORNEY EVALUATING AN APPEAL.
AND WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING OFFENSIVE AND THE COURT ORDERS YOU TO COME BEFORE IT AND ASK YOU, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE FOR THE DISRESPECT YOU'VE SHOWN, YOU MIGHT WANT TO APOLOGIZE.
AND IT'S INTERESTING TO ME THAT PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS WANT TO APOLOGIZE.
AND ONE OF THE CASES I CITED TO YOU WAS LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION B SPENCER STARTED AS A CIVIL PROCEEDING.
ULTIMATELY ENDED UP BEING A DISCIPLINARY MATTER.
SPENCER REFUSED TO APOLOGIZE OR RECANT.
AND WHEN ASKED AN OPEN COURT, IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE COURT WAS DISHONEST, SPENCER REPLIED THAT HE DID, AND HE ULTIMATELY WAS DISCIPLINED FOR THAT MISCONDUCT.
SO WHEN GIVEN A CHANCE TO APOLOGIZE, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER APOLOGIZING.
THERE IS ANOTHER CASE, OLD, OLD CASE, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS KIND OF FUNNY.
I MEAN, FUNNY THE MAY, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO NOT A GOOD, BUT THE CASES FROM 1943 AND AN ATTORNEY CRITICIZED TWO JUDGES, AND HE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT AND DURING ORAL ARGUMENT, HE WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RETRACT HIS CRITICAL WORDS.
AND THE ATTORNEY ADVISED THE COURT THAT HE WOULD RATHER GO TO JAIL THAN RETRACT THEM OR APOLOGIZE FOR THEM.
SO THEY, THE COURT ALLOWED HIM TO SPEND 24 HOURS IN THE PARISH PRISON.
SO WHEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO APOLOGIZE, CONSIDER TAKING IT, IF NOT FOR YOURSELF, FOR YOUR CLIENT, KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE, SOMETIMES WHEN YOU READ A BRIEF, YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'RE READING A NOVEL AND IT CAN BE INTERESTING, RIGHT? AND YOU'RE THUMBING THROUGH IT, BUT KNOW WHO YOUR AUDIENCE IS.
IS YOUR AUDIENCE AN APPELLATE COURT, IS YOUR AUDIENCE A JURY OF PEERS, RIGHT? FOR THE AUDIENCE, SKIP SOME OF THE THEATRICAL AND DRAMATICS IF THEY DON'T NECESSARILY ENHANCE YOUR LEGAL POSITION.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT IN THE STATE V FRANCIS CASE.
AGAIN, THIS WAS NOT A DISCIPLINARY CASE, BUT THE COURT, UM, IN THE BRIEF TO THE COURT,
[01:45:01]
THE ATTORNEY WRITING THE BRIEF REFERRED TO THE CLIENT'S FORMER CO-DEFENDANT AS A PSYCHOPATH AND THE STATE'S PLEA AGREEMENT WITH A FORMER CO-DEFENDANT WAS DESCRIBED AS A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL.THIS CASE IS FROM 2018 JUSTICE CRIGHTON.
AGAIN, WHO, UM, OFTEN WRITES CONCURRENCES INTO SENSE, OBSERVED THAT THIS LANGUAGE CAME PERILOUSLY CLOSE TO VIOLATING THE SUPREME COURT RULES.
SO AGAIN, TRY TO KEEP THOSE EMOTIONAL COMPONENTS OUT OF IT.
UM, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY RELEVANT TO THE LITIGATION.
UM, THERE WAS ANOTHER CASE WHERE I THINK I CITED IT, BUT THERE WAS AN ATTACK MADE ON THE OPPOSING PARTY AND LANGUAGE WAS USED THAT WAS DISRESPECTFUL ABOUT THE OPPOSING PARTIES APPEARANCE.
AND, UM, I WISH I COULD REMEMBER WHICH ONE IT WAS TO DIRECT YOU TO IT.
AND THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS NOT ONLY DISRESPECTFUL.
YOU CAN FIND IT IF YOU REVIEW THE MATERIALS, I'M SURE I'LL FIND IT IN THE MOMENT, BUT IT WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT.
UM, SOME OF THE CASES I CITED TALK ABOUT WHEN THE PARTY SEEKS TO STRIKE LANGUAGE BECAUSE, UM, AND, AND THE COURT BASICALLY SAYS, WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO STRIKE IT.
IT'S NOT OFFENSIVE JUST BECAUSE IT'S CONTRARY TO THE POSITION YOU HOLD.
AND I THOUGHT THOSE WERE INTERESTING, TOO, THAT KIND OF IS IN LINE WITH WHAT I WAS SAYING ABOUT, WELL, SOMETIMES GET COMPLAINTS WHERE PEOPLE ARGUE, WELL, I'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN APPEAL, SO MY OPPOSING COUNSEL SHOULD BE DISCIPLINED OR ADVANCING AN ARGUMENT THAT WAS, UM, NOT CREDIBLE.
AND I THINK LAST THING I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH, UM, IN TERMS OF PROFESSIONALISM IS THAT MESSY WORK IS NOT PROFESSIONAL.
AND THIS IS THE SETS, THE WOMAN WHO HAD A TYPO IN HER MATERIALS EARLIER MATERIALS, BUT ONE TYPE IS OKAY, RIGHT.
I CAN BE FORGIVEN FOR THAT, BUT WE PROOFREAD YOUR WORK.
SOMETIMES WE'RE ALL UNDER THE GUN.
WE HAVE TO GET THE WORK SUBMITTED, BUT REREAD YOUR WORK.
UM, AGAIN, AS I SAID BEFORE, SET IT ASIDE, UH, SPELL, CHECK IT, YOU KNOW, DO THE GRAMMATICAL CHECK ON IT.
WE ALL HAVE ACCESS TO WORD PROCESSORS.
NOW, UM, THERE WAS A CASE, UM, IN THE CASE THAT A SITE IS IN RE INTERDICTION OF DEMARCO.
IT'S A 2010 CASE AGAIN, OUT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT.
AND, UM, THE COURT CRITIQUED COUNSEL'S BRIEF.
AND HONESTLY, I DON'T KNOW WHO THE NAME OF THE ATTORNEY WAS ON THE CASE.
IT'S NOT REALLY RELEVANT BECAUSE EACH OF US AND TIME HAVE I'M SURE SUBMITTED WORK THAT WE WISH HAD BEEN BETTER, OR THAT WE HAD SPENT MORE TIME CLEANING UP OR, UH, PERHAPS HAVING A COLLEAGUE CLEANUP FOR US, BUT THE COURT SPOKE TO, THEY QUOTED IT AND THAT'S IN A WAY SHAMEFUL, THEY'RE QUOTING BASICALLY HOW POORLY IT'S DRAFTED AND THE COMMENTARY IS QUITE HORT HARSH.
AND I'M GOING TO READ TO YOU A PART OF THAT COMMENTARY, EVEN IN ITS INCOMPLETE, AN UNGRAMMATICAL STATE, THE LAST EMPHASIZE SENTENCE IS STRONGLY SUGGESTIVE OF UNETHICAL OR UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND DISHONESTY AND DISLOYALTY TO A CLIENT ON THE PART OF THE OPPOSING PARTIES RETAIN COUNSEL, MORE DRESSING.
WE RECOGNIZE THE EMOTIONAL CONTEXT INHERIT AND CONTESTED IN ADDICTION PROCEEDINGS.
NEVERTHELESS, WE CONSIDER IT NECESSARY INAPPROPRIATE TO STRIKE THE OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE FROM MR. OLSEN'S BRIEF, AND TO INCORPORATE IN THIS OPINION, THIS FORMAL ADMONISHMENT OF HIS COUNSEL FOR SUCH ILL CONSIDERED AN INAPPROPRIATE ASSERTIONS, WHICH AT THE VERY LEAST IMPLICITLY DISPARAGE, IF NOT OPENLY IMPUGN, OPPOSING COUNSEL'S PROFESSIONAL CHARACTER.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT IF I WERE TO RECEIVE AN OPINION LIKE THAT, THAT I'M NOW GOING TO HAVE TO SHARE WITH MY CLIENT, UM, THAT WOULD CAUSE ME GRAVE CONCERN.
IT WOULD TO USE THE COURT, THE LANGUAGE OF LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT.
AND ESPECIALLY IF I CAN TAKE THE TIME TO REVIEW MY WORK BEFORE IT GETS FILED WITH THE COURT AND TRY AND PRESENT THE COURT WITH THE, UM, THE BEST LEGAL PRODUCT THAT I CAN ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT.
UM, SO THAT THE COURT PERCEIVES ME NOT ONLY AS COMPETENT, BUT ALSO AS, UM, DILIGENT AND PROFESSIONAL.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD CERTAINLY, UM, ENDEAVOR TO DO.
UM, WITH THAT BEING SAID, THAT WOULD CONCLUDE THE HOUR OF, UH, I ENJOYED BEING WITH ALL OF YOU, THE, THOSE OF YOU HERE IN THE AUDIENCE MADE IT MUCH EASIER FOR ME TO SPEAK THIS AFTERNOON.
AND TO THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE REMOTE, I HOPE THAT THIS WAS OF INTEREST TO YOU AND OF HELP.
[01:50:01]
AND IF YOU EVER NEED ANY ASSISTANCE, YOU SHOULD FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT TO ME.I DON'T ALWAYS KNOW THE ANSWERS, BUT I'M USUALLY ABLE TO SEND YOU SOMEWHERE WHERE YOU CAN FIND THOSE ANSWERS FOR YOURSELF.
SO, UH, THANK YOU ALL VERY, VERY MUCH AND STAY SAFE.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND KNOWLEDGE IS ALWAYS LICENSED.
WE'RE ABOUT TO BEGIN THE THIRD.
UH, MCLE APPROVED OUR, OF OUR, UH, AFTERNOON GOVERNMENT CLE.
UH, I'M HAPPY AND PROUD TODAY TO GIVE YOU CHIEF JUDGE WILSON E FIELDS.
UH, THE TOPIC IS GOING TO BE NAVIGATING THE 19TH JDC.
UH, I KNOW MANY HERE IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY EVERYONE KNOWS JUDGE FIELDS.
UH, HE IS A GRADUATE OF SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY, BOTH FROM UNDERGRAD AND LAW SCHOOL, ALONG WITH, UH, ACHIEVING HIS MASTER'S OF LAW FROM TULANE UNIVERSITY.
UH, HE HAS SPENT TIME AS A FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER HERE IN CITY OF BATON ROUGE, ALONG WITH, AS A STATE SENATOR, UH, DISTRICT 15 HERE FOR THE STATE.
UH, AND HE ALSO PROUDLY SERVED AS A JAG OFFICER IN THE LOUISIANA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD.
UH, SO WITH THAT, WE ARE HAPPY AND PLEASED TO GIVE YOU CHIEF JUDGE WILSON, HE FIELDS.
I KNOW MANY OF YOU ALL BEEN SITTING IN HERE AND HEARD THE LAST PURCHASE OWNER WHO WAS VERY GREAT ON TOPICS.
I'M GOING TO TRY MY BEST TO, UM, GO THROUGH SOME MATERIAL AND, AND PAUSE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE AS WE TALK ABOUT NAVIGATING THROUGH THE 19TH JDC.
UM, I CAME ON A BENCH 20 YEARS AGO.
AND IT HAS CHANGED FROM THE TIME I'VE BEEN ON THE BENCH UNTIL NOW.
AND EVEN WITHIN THE LAST, I GUESS 10 YEARS, WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF CHANGES, UM, IN THE 19 JDC WE'VE HAD IN THE LAST, I GUESS YEAR OR TWO.
UM, A LOT OF NEW JUDGES, UM, HAVE TAKEN A BENCH IN WHEN I CAME ON, LIKE I SAID, 20 YEARS AGO, I WAS THE YOUNGEST, UM, ON THE BENCH IN TERMS OF AGE AND IN TERMS OF NUMBERS OF YEARS ON THE BENCH.
AND NOW AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, UM, IS ONLY, UM, TWO OTHER JUDGES THAT'S BEEN ON THE BENCH OR THREE THAT'S BEEN ON THE BENCH LONGER THAN I HAVE.
AND ONE OF THEM IS ABOUT TO RETIRE AT THE END OF THIS YEAR.
TOUCH MORE AVANT IS, UM, AS ANNOUNCED HIS RETIREMENT.
UH, WE HAVE, UM, TIM KELLY AND DON JOHNSON AND THEN ME, AND THERE'S 15 OF US THAT SERVE ON THE BENCH.
UM, YOU KNOW, I CAME ON WHEN I WAS, UM, 32 AND NOW, UM, YOU KNOW, 37 AND OKAY.
UM, STARTING WITH THE, UM, NAVIGATING THE 19 JDC AS I STAYED IS, UM, IT'S 15 OF US, UM, CURRENTLY ON THE, ON THE BENCH TWO WITH TWO COMMISSIONERS AND WE HAVE, UM, THE COURT BROKE, UM, IS BROKEN DOWN INTO CRIMINAL AND CIVIL.
NOW, THE REASON WHY I MENTIONED THAT IS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT LIKE ORLEANS PARISH.
AND AS YOU ALL KNOW, IN ALL THESE PAIRS, YOU RUN FOR CIVIL DISTRICT COURT AND, UM, CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT HERE IN EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH IN THE 19TH JDC, WE ALL WERE RUN FOR, UM, WHAT WE CALL GENERAL JURISDICTION.
BUT ONCE WE GET TO THE, UM, TO THE BENCH, OUR COLLEAGUES, WE, UM, KIND OF DECIDED WAY BACK BEFORE I GOT ON THE BED, THAT WE WILL HAVE USED TO BE EIGHT CRIMINAL SECTIONS AND SEVEN, UM, CIVIL SECTIONS ON THE BENCH.
OH, BUT WHEN YOU FILE A PLEADING AND I'M, I'M, I'M DOING ALL CIVIL, BUT WHEN YOU FILE A PLEADING, YOU WILL NOT SEE DIVISION, OH, YOU WOULD SEE SECTION 25.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS WE RUN FOR A PARTICULAR DIVISION.
AND THEN ONCE WE GET TO THE COURT, WE HAVE THESE DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF COURT.
FOR INSTANCE, ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE, WE HAVE SECTION ONE THROUGH BECAUSE 10 NOW, BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME JUDGES THAT HAVE DECIDED TO DO BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL.
[01:55:01]
SAY IS ON THE CRIMINAL BENCH AND HE, OR SHE REPRESENTS OR PRESIDES OVER SAY DIVISION A, THE VISION THAT THEY RUN FOR, THAT YOU GO AND VOTE FOR US.THEN WHEN THEY GET TO THE BENCH AND THEY HAVE SECTION ONE ON THE CRIMINAL DOCKET THAT'S.
SO WE CAN ASSIGN THAT PARTICULAR JUDGE, A DOCKET.
NOW THAT PARTICULAR JUDGE WHO IS PRESIDING OVER SECTION ONE ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE, AT SOME POINT HE IS, SHE, UM, MAY START DOING CASES ON THE CIVIL SIDE.
SO INSTEAD OF TAKING THAT WHOLE DIVISION AND SAY, OKAY, NOW THAT DIVISION IS A CRIMINAL SECTION.
WE, THE JUDGE MOVES TO ANOTHER SECTION OF COURT, BUT HE IS, HE STILL PRESIDES OVER HIS OR HER DIVISION.
SO MY DIVISION IS THE VISION, OH, IF I CHOOSE NOT TO RUN OR YOU CHOOSE NOT TO VOTE FOR ME AGAIN.
AND SOMEONE ELSE STARTED PRESIDING OVER DIVISION, OH, DIVISION, OH, MAY NOT BE ASSIGNED SECTION 25, WHICH IS A CIVIL SECTION.
IT MAY BE ASSIGNED SECTION THREE WAS A CRIMINAL SECTION.
SO THAT'S KIND OF A, I GUESS, A LITTLE NUANCE IN TERMS OF HOW WE DO THINGS IN THE 19TH.
UM, AND AS YOU ALL KNOW, IN THE 19TH, WE ONLY, UM, PRESIDER WAS SILVER AND CRIMINAL CASES.
UNLIKE OTHER JURISDICTIONS LIKE THE 18TH JURISDICTION, I MEAN, JDC, THEY DO CRIMINAL, SILVER FAMILY, UM, JUVENILE, THE WHOLE WAX.
NOW WE ALSO HAVE SOME JUDGES COME JANUARY.
THE FIRST OF 2022, UM, HAVE DECIDED THAT THEY WANT TO DO BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL.
SO IF YOU LOOK ON THE BOARD, THE NINE JUDGES THERE THAT COMMONLY HAVE CRIMINAL DOCKET, THEY WILL PRIMARILY HAVE A CRIMINAL DOCKET.
I EVER, THERE ARE THREE JUDGES THAT ARE DOING A FOUR JUDGES, REALLY THAT FIVE JUDGES ON THIS BOARD THAT ALSO GOING TO BE DOING CIVIL COME JANUARY THE FIRST.
UM, AND I'LL GO THROUGH THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO BE DOING CIVIL RIGHT NOW.
JUDGE RON JOHNSON IS, UM, ASSIGNED TO THE DOCKET.
THAT DIVISION D WAS PRESIDING NOVA, WHICH IS A CIVIL DOCKET, BUT JUDGE RON JOHNSON AND JUDGE WILL JORDAN, UM, A YEAR AGO, UM, THE COURT VOTED AND DECIDED THAT JUDGE RON JOHNSON, FULL CIVIL DOCKET, HALF OF IT WOULD GO TO JUDGE JORDAN AND HALF A JUDGE, JORDAN CRIMINAL DOCKET WOULD GO TO JUDGE RON JOHNSON.
SO THEY WERE SPLITTING THE DOCKET.
NOW UNDERSTAND WHEN I SAY HALF, WE DID NOT SAY, OKAY, JUDGE RON JOHNSON, THIS IS USED NUMBERS.
YOU GOT A THOUSAND CIVIL CASES RIGHT NOW SIGNED TO YOU.
WE'RE GOING TO GIVE TO JUDGE JORDAN.
RON JOHNSON KEPT THE THOUSAND CIVIL CASES THAT HE HAD.
AND THEN, AND, AND WILL JORDAN JUDGE JORDAN SAY, IF HE HAD A THOUSAND CRIMINAL CASES, HE KEPT THAT THOUSAND CRIMINAL CASES.
AND THEN AS NEW CASES CAME ON ON THE CIVIL SIDE, JUDGE, RON JOHNSON WOULD GIVE HIM ONE.
THEN WE'LL JUDGE JORDAN, WE'LL GET THE NEXT ONE.
AND I, AND I'LL GET INTO HOW WE DIVIDE THAT ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE, YOU GET YOUR CASES, NOT BY, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE COMMIT AN OFFENSE AND JUDGE A GETS THIS CASE.
THEN THE NEXT PERSON COMMITTED A FIFTH.
JUDGE B GETS THAT CRIMINAL CASE.
THE WAY YOU GET YOUR CASES ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE IS BASED ON WHEN YOU GO ON DUTY.
SO IF YOU'RE ON DUTY AND EACH JUDGE ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE IS ON DUTY FOR, UM, FOR ONE WEEK AT A TIME.
SO ANY ONE THAT COMMITS AN OFFENSE WHILE YOU'RE ON DUTY, THAT'S YOUR CASE WITH THE CAVEAT THAT, UM, FELONIES FOLLOW FELONIES? WHAT I MEAN BY THAT, IF I'M ON DUTY TODAY, WHICH IS, UM, DECEMBER THE 16TH AND A FELONY HAPPENED TODAY, THAT IS MY CASE.
IF THAT A NEW DEFENDER, IF HE OR SHE HAS NEVER BEEN IN THE SYSTEM BEFORE, OR I SHOULDN'T SAY BEFORE, DOES NOT HAVE ANY PRESENT CASES.
NOW SAY THE PERSON BONDS OUT AND TWO MONTHS FROM NOW, I'M NOT ON DUTY.
[02:00:01]
COMMITS A, ANOTHER FELONY, OR HE GETS CHARGED WITH A FELONY THEN.AND TO SAY, JUDGE JORDAN WAS ON DUTY.
JUDGE JORDAN WAS SET THE BOND FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL.
HOWEVER, WHEN THE CASE FLOWS UP AND HOWEVER, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DECIDES TO PROSECUTE IT, IF IT'S PROSECUTED AS A FELONY, THEN THAT CASE WOULD COME TO ME ALSO BECAUSE I HAVE THE FIRST FELONY THAT THE INDIVIDUAL, UM, ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED, I WOULD GET ALL SUBSEQUENT FELONIES AS LONG AS THE CASES ARE STILL OPEN.
SO THAT'S WHY WE SAY THE FELONIES FOLLOWED THE FELONIES.
UM, UM, AND ALSO IF HE HAS ANY UNDERLYING IN MISDEMEANOR CASES, WE TRY TO KEEP ALL THAT PERSON CHARGES WITH ONE JUDGE.
SO YOU WON'T HAVE THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT JUDGES DOING, UM, LOOKING AT, UM, UH, A DEFENDANT FOR HIS OR HER CASES.
I KNOW I'M GOING STOP, BUT Y'ALL GOT TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS.
SOME OF THAT, I KNOW THAT GOT TO BE CONFUSED.
AND I KNOW I, YOU KNOW, I, I'M NOT THAT GOOD.
WELL, I CAN JUST EXPLAIN THIS STUFF AND Y'ALL, DON'T HAVE A QUESTION FOR NO QUESTION.
UM, OH, UH, IF I PUT THAT SLIDE BACK UP OF THE NINE JUDGES, I WAS GOING TO TELL YOU THE JUDGES THAT ARE GOING TO COME JANUARY THE FIRST OF 2022 THAT ARE GOING TO BE DOING BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF JUDGE RON JOHNSON AND JUDGE WORLD JORDAN THAT I SPOKE OF IN TERMS OF HOW THEY ARE SPLITTING HALF OVER A FULL CRIMINAL DOCKET AND HALF OF A FULL SILVER DOCKET, JUDGE JORDAN, JUDGE SMITH, AND JUDGE ROBERTS.
THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.
THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT THE WAY I DID IT.
WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE ON THE BENCH 20 YEARS AGO, SAY FOR INSTANCE, JUDGE JORDAN, JUDGE SMITH, AND JUDGE ROBERTS, THEY ALL HAVE A FULL CRIMINAL DOCKET.
UM, EARLIER THIS MONTH WE TOOK A VOTE IN THE FULL JUDGES MEETING BECAUSE THEY WANT TO EXERCISE THEIR FULL GENERAL JURISDICTION.
THEY WANT TO DO BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL, BUT THEY DID NOT HAVE A JUDGE ON THE CIVIL SIDE TO PAIR UP WITH, TO DO A SPLIT DOCKET.
SO THOSE THREE JUDGES AGREED THAT, OKAY.
I WILL KEEP MY FULL CRIMINAL DOCKET, BUT COME JANUARY THE FIRST, I WANT TO BE ADDED TO THE CIVIL ROTATION AS WELL.
SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO FULL DOCKETS, MEANING, LIKE I SAID, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME FULL CRIMINAL DOCKET.
AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO START RECEIVING CIVIL CASES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR.
NOW SOME MAY SAY, YOU KNOW, IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT.
IT'S GONNA BE HARD FOR THEM TO DO THAT.
I KNOW I CAN SPEAK FROM EXPERIENCE BECAUSE I'VE DONE IT.
UM, UM, YOU KNOW, EACH ONE OF US GOT OUR OWN WAYS OF HOW WE MANAGE OUR DOCKET, BUT THE WAY I DID IT, UM, SOME STARTED SOME 20 YEARS AGO WHEN I HAD A FULL CRIMINAL NFL, CIVIL, I DID TWO WEEKS CRIMINAL AND THEN I DID TWO WEEKS CIVIL.
SO I CAN BE IN CRIMINAL COURT FOR TWO WEEKS, DO EVERYTHING I THINK I NEED TO DO, AND THEN MOVE TO MY CIVIL DOCKET AND DO EVERYTHING FOR TWO WEEKS.
FOR ME, I FOUND IT WORKED THAT WAY.
SOME OF THESE OTHER THREE JUDGES, THEY MAY DECIDE TO RUN THEIR DOCKET A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY AND UNDERSTAND WHEN THEY FIRST START OFF IN JANUARY.
UM, THEY REALLY NOT GOING TO HAVE, WELL, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY CASES COME JANUARY 1ST, BUT AS THE CASES STARTED GOING THROUGH THE HOPPER ON THE SILVERSIDE, IT'S RANDOMLY ALLOTTED.
SO THEY ARE NOW GOING TO GET ONE 10TH OF THE CASES ON THE CIVIL SIDE.
AND AS YOU ALL KNOW, IF YOU FILE A CASE JANUARY THE THIRD, IT MAY BE DECEMBER OR NEXT YEAR BEFORE ANY MOTION PRACTICE OR ANYTHING HAPPENED ON IT.
SO THEY ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE CIVIL CASES THAT THEY'RE GOING INTO COURT MAKING WHAT IT MAY, BUT, BUT SHOULDN'T HAVE THAT MINUTE.
UM, WHEN THEY FIRST START OFF.
SO I THINK THOSE THREE JUDGES OR STUPID ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO MANAGE THEIR DOCKETS AND, UM, STAY CURRENT ON, UM, EVERYTHING THAT GOES ON NOW, WHAT HAVE THE JUDGES DECIDED IN TERMS OF, LET'S SAY ANY ONE OF THOSE JUDGES DECIDE THAT WELL, YOU KNOW, A YEAR FROM NOW TWO YEARS FROM NOW, UM, IT'S GETTING TO BE A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH.
I'M TRYING TO DO BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL BECAUSE I STARTED PICKING UP MORE AND MORE CIVIL CASES.
AND FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY DECIDE, UM, THE BODY HAS SAID THAT, OKAY, IF YOU COME BACK TO THE BODY AND SAY, I NO LONGER WANT TO DO THIS SPLIT, BUT EVERY CIVIL CASE THAT YOU HAVE THAT HAS BEEN
[02:05:01]
ASSIGNED TO YOUR SECTION, YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP, WE WON'T ASSIGN ANY ADDITIONAL CASES TO YOU, OR WE'LL TAKE YOU OUT OF THE ALLOTMENT, BUT ALL THE CASES THAT YOU HAVE CURRENTLY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FINISH THOSE CASES OUT.SO WE WON'T HAVE JUDGES, YOU KNOW, TWO, THREE YEARS FROM NOW SAYING, WELL, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS ANYMORE.
AND THEN WE GOT TO START REALIZING CASES AND CASES MAY BE, YOU KNOW, MID STREAM AND ALMOST READY TO BE DISPENSED WITH.
SO WHATEVER CASE THE JUDGE GET, HE OR SHE IS GOING TO HAVE TO, UM, CONTINUE THAT CASE.
THE QUESTION WAS FOR THOSE WHO ARE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY, I MENTIONED THAT JUST THE QUESTION WAS THAT I MENTIONED JUDGE JORDAN AND JUDGE RON JOHNSON WAS SPLITTING THE DOCKET NOW AND THEN COME JANUARY 1ST, JUDGE JORDAN WAS GOING TO GET HIS OWN, UM, CIVIL DOCKET WITH HIS CRIMINAL DOC.
IT'S NOT JUST JORDAN AND JUDGE, UM, RON JOHNSON, I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT IS JUDGE RON JOHNSON AND JUDGE KELLY BATTLEFORD.
THOSE ARE THE TWO THAT DID THE, UM, THE SPLIT HALF AND HALF.
UM, I WAS TRYING TO SEE IF Y'ALL WAS PAYING ATTENTION AND NOW THAT I KNOW Y'ALL PAYING ATTENTION TO 'EM TOO GOOD, BUT YES, IT'S JUDGE BATTLEFORD AND JUDGE RON JOHNSON DEAD STARTED A HALF AND HALF SPLIT ABOUT A YEAR AGO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
AND I MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, ON A CIVIL SIDE, OUR CASES ARE RANDOMLY ALLOTTED.
WHAT THAT WE ALL KNOW WE'RE RANDOMLY ALLOTMENT MEANS.
UM, BUT THAT IS NOT DONE WITH THE JUDGES THAT IS DONE THROUGH THE CLERK OF COURTS OFFICE.
AND, AND I'M NOT, I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW THAT SYSTEM WORK OTHER THAN THEY HAVE A COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM.
FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN A CASE COMES IN IS RANDOMLY ALLOTTED.
AND I SUPPOSE THE RIGHT NOW IS, UM, EIGHT OF US OR REALLY NINE OF US, UM, GETTING, UM, CIVIL CASES AND I POST TO GET ONE NINTH OF THEM.
NOT ONLY DO WE DO ALL OUR REGULAR CIVIL CASES, BUT WE ALSO HANDLE THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, UM, UM, TROS THERE, I THINK MAYBE FIVE TO 10 YEARS AGO.
UM, WE, THE 19TH JDC THOUGHT THAT THOSE MATTERS SHOULD BE HANDLED BY FAMILY COURT.
UM, THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED THAT NO, IF IT'S NOT SAY HUSBAND AND WIFE, BUT IF IT'S LIKE BOYFRIEND AND GIRLFRIEND OR, OR HE MADE IT ANOTHER PERSON THAT KNOWS T R O UM, COME TO US AND A LOT OF THEM, AT LEAST THE ONES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE ME, UM, IT'S A LOT OF, UM, UM, UM, THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING ON SOCIAL MEDIA THAT, UM, FOLKS ARE, I GUESS, ANGRY WITH EACH OTHER.
UM, SO WE DEAL WITH A LOT OF THOSE AND, UH, WE, YOU KNOW, WE MAKE THE BEST DECISION THAT, THAT WE CAN MAKE BASED ON WHAT COMES BEFORE US, BUT WE DO DO SOME DOMESTIC, UM, UM, TROS, ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, UM, THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS THAT WE HAVE AT THE 19 FIRST I'LL DEAL WITH, UM, TALK ABOUT OUR SPECIALTY COURTS AND THE SPECIALTY COURT.
WE ARE TRYING TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY INDIVIDUALS IN THIS MAINLY ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE TO TRY TO DO SOME, I'M SORRY, I SUPPOSED TO SAY THIS PHRASE WORD, AND I'LL MISS THAT.
PHRASE WORD, UH, FOR THOSE WHO ARE DOING VIRTUAL IS, UM, THE BRADY BUNCH.
SO I THINK HE'S SUPPOSED TO TAKE THAT DOWN NOW AND PUT DOWN THE BRADY BUNCH, BUT, UM, WE'RE TRYING TO IDENTIFY HOW WE CAN BEST KEEP INDIVIDUALS FROM GOING THROUGH THE SYSTEM, UM, ON, FROM A NEGATIVE STANDPOINT, BY SOMEBODY SPECIALTY COURT, FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU REPRESENT A PERSON WHO HAS SOME DRUG CHARGES, UM, WE HAVE THE RECOVERY COURT FORMERLY KNOWN AS DRUG COURT, MAYBE ABOUT
[02:10:01]
SIX MONTHS AGO OR, OR FOUR MONTHS AGO, WE CHANGED THE NAME FROM DRUG COURT TO RECOVERY COURT BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THAT THE DRUG COURT NAME IN OF ITSELF GAVE KIND OF A NEGATIVE CONNOTATION TO IT.SO WE WANT SOMETHING WITH A MORE POSITIVE, UM, NAME TO IT.
AND JUDGE DON JOHNSON, WHO PRESIDES OVER THE RECOVERY COURT, UM, CAME TO THE BODY, UM, WITH THAT, UM, I'M SUGGESTING AND THE, HE FELT THAT THAT WAS A GOOD THING TO DO AND CHANGE IT TO THE RECOVERY COURT.
THE RECOVERY COURT USED TO BE HOUSED OFF OF WOODDALE BOULEVARD.
UM, WHEN WE WERE IN THIS BUILDING HERE AT CITY HALL, WE DIDN'T HAVE SPACE FOR THE RECOVERY COURT.
SO WE HAD TO LEASE SPACE OUTSIDE OF THE 19TH JDC TWO FOR THE RECOVERY COURT.
AND ONCE WE MOVED TO OUR CURRENT LOCATION, UM, WE HAVE THE SPACE, BUT NO ONE WE WERE IN THE CONCH, WELL, W WE'RE IN A CONTRACT WITH THE FACILITY.
SO WE HAD TO KIND OF WAIT TO THAT CONTRACT.
AND, AND JUDGE DON JOHNSON HAS WORKED, UM, UM, TREMENDOUSLY TO TRY TO GET THE DRUG COURT HOUSED AT THE 19 JDC WHERE HE CAN HAVE, UM, BETTER SUPERVISION OVER IT.
AND THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WORK THERE, NOT THAT ANYTHING WAS GOING ON, WE JUST WANT THEM HOUSED WITH US.
AND NOW I THINK THAT HAS BEEN A PLUS FOR US BY HAVING, UM, THE DRUG COURT, UM, THERE AT THE 1980 C.
SO IF YOU GOT A, A DEFENDANT THAT HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH A, UM, WITH A CRIME THAT DEALS WITH, UM, SOME SCHEDULE TWO AND ABOVE DRUGS, THEN HE, OR SHE, OR THAT PARTICULAR JUST PRESIDING OVER THAT CASE OR THE DA OR THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OR THEIR PRIVATE COUNSEL CAN SUGGEST TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE.
WELL, MAYBE THIS MIGHT BE A CASE, UM, THAT SUITS, UM, GOING TO THE DRUG COURT.
I MEAN, I'M SORRY TO RECOVER COURT WHERE THEY CAN PUT THEM THROUGH A PROGRAM BECAUSE IT'S NOT ONLY JUST TO SAY, OKAY, YOU KNOW, JOHN FRUITFUL, YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG AND WE'RE GOING TO PUNISH YOU, BUT WHAT ARE WE DOING TO TRY TO, UM, STOP OR ELIMINATE THIS PERSON FROM USING DRUGS? AND THAT'S WHAT THE DRUG COURT, UH, I KEEP SAYING DRUG COURT, I'M SORRY TO RECOVERY COURT IS ABOUT, AND THEY HAVE GRADUATIONS FOR THESE INTERVIEWS.
AND IF YOU EVER GET A CHANCE TO COME TO SOME OF THESE GRADUATIONS AND YOU SEE SOME OF THE SUCCESS STORIES THAT HAS COME OUT OF THAT PROGRAM, YOU'D BE AMAZED BY, BY THAT PROGRAM.
THE OTHER ONE WE HAVE IS THE PRE-TRIAL, UM, RECOVERY AND DIVERSION COURT, UH, ONCE AGAIN, UM, UM, JOHNSON, UM, PRESIDES OVER THAT, AND WE HAVE THE, UH, RECOVERY COURT IN WHICH, UM, JUDGE KERR, FASC, UM, PRESIDES OVER THAT.
AND WE HAVE SOME OF OUR NEW JUDGES, UH, WHEN I SAY NEW JUDGES, JUDGES THAT HAVE JUST TAKEN THE BENCH WITHIN A YEAR, UM, THEY ARE ASKING ABOUT DOING SOME, UM, SOME, SOME SPECIALTY COURTS AS WELL.
UM, I WON'T SAY WHAT THOSE COURTS ARE BECAUSE SOME OF THEM, THEY ARE BROUGHT TO THE FULL BODY AND THE BODY HAS DECIDED WHERE FIRST, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE IN THE FIRST YEAR LESS, MAKE SURE WE GET OUR FEET WET AND EVERYTHING WITH PEN ON THE CASES THAT YOU HAVE.
AND THEN ONCE, UM, PROBABLY STARTING SOMETIME NEXT YEAR, WE'LL START LOOKING AT RED AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO EXPAND TO DO SOME ADDITIONAL SPECIALTY COURTS, BUT I CAN TELL YOU ONE, AND IT, THIS WAS IN THE MAKING BEFORE WE GOT SOME NEWLY ELECTED JUDGES.
UM, WE'RE ALMOST AT THE STAGE WHERE WE CAN GET APPROVAL FOR A VETERANS COURT, UM, FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO, UM, WHO ARE VETERANS.
UM, WE'RE TRYING TO SEE HOW WE CAN HAVE A, UM, A SPECIALTY COURT TO CHANNEL THOSE INDIVIDUALS THROUGH.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AROUND THE STATE AND EVEN SUGGESTION FROM THE, UM, FROM, FROM THE SUPREME COURT THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN DO SPECIALTY COURTS WITHOUT HARMING YOUR, YOUR, UM, I GUESS YOUR OPERATION IN TERMS OF WHAT WE ARE HERE TO DO, THEN CERTAINLY, UM, SPECIALTY COURTS ARE BEING LOOKED AT THROUGHOUT THE, THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
I KNOW, AND I THINK THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY IN TERMS OF, UM, A WAY TO GO IN THE FUTURE, BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MORE SPECIALTY COURTS WE GOING TO HAVE, BUT I DO THINK THE VETERANS COURT IS GOING TO BE ONE THAT MAY COME NEXT YEAR, IF NOT NEXT YEAR, SUDDENLY THE YEAR AFTER.
SO WE ARE LOOKING TO TRY TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA.
UM, THE QUESTION FOR THOSE WHO ARE VIRTUAL IS
[02:15:01]
HOW THE RESIGNATION OF JUDGE MORE AVANT, UM, IS GOING TO AFFECT THE SPLIT DOCKET.UM, LET ME ANSWER IT THIS WAY.
I'M NOT CERTAIN WHAT THEY'RE ASKING, BUT IF THEY ASK SOMETHING ELSE, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER IT.
UM, AS I STATED, JUDGE MARVIN IS GOING TO LEAVE, UM, DECEMBER THE 31ST.
UM, AS OF NOW, UM, WE HAVE NOT BEEN NOTIFIED, UM, FROM THE SUPPORTING THE COURT WHO THEY'RE GOING TO A POINT TO FEEL THAT VACANCY UNTIL THERE'S ANY LIKES.
THE ONLY THING THAT I KNOW FROM SPEAKING WITH, UM, THE SUPPORTING COURT IS THAT DEPENDING ON WHAT THE 19 JDC DO, THE JUDGE HAS MEANING RIGHT OR NOT.
WE DECIDE AMONGST OURSELVES THAT ONE OF US GOING TO TAKE OVER HIS DOCKET, WHICH IS A CIVIL DOCKET.
AND, AND IF THAT LEAVES A CRIMINAL DOCKET, UM, UM, UNATTENDED, THEN THE SUPREME COURT WILL APPOINT SOMEONE WHO'S GOING TO TAKE OVER THAT CRIMINAL DOCKET.
IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING, THEY APPOINT SOMEONE TO TAKE OVER HIS CIVIL DOCKET UNTIL ANY LEX IN HIS HEAD, BUT REALLY THAT'S UP TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WHO THEY APPOINT RIGHT NOW.
UM, ALL WE KNOW IS JUDGE MOORE BOND IS GONNA LEAVE DECEMBER THE 31ST AND THE SUPPORTING COURT IS GOING TO HAVE SOMEONE TO COME AND HIS, UM, HIS, UM, HIS VACANCY UNTIL THERE'S AN ELECTION.
SO, AND I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT ELECTION WAS GOING TO BE CALLED.
I WAS JUST SPEAKING TODAY WITH SOMEONE AND WE THINK, YOU KNOW, MAYBE QUALIFYING SOME TIME AND WELL, LET ME NOT SAY, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY'RE GONNA, UM, HAVE THE ELECTION, BUT IT SHOULD BE SOMETIME EARLY NEXT YEAR TO HAVE SOMEONE PERMANENTLY FEEL THAT SEE, BUT UNTIL THEN SUPREME COURT WOULD MAKE AN APPOINTMENT.
UM, MOVING TO THE NEXT SLIDE OF, UM, BAIL BONDS, WE, UM, THE BAIL BOND.
AND WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU HEAR THE NAME BAIL BONDS, YOU, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST ME, I'M THINKING WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE AND SAID, YOU KNOW, WE GOT A BAIL BOND PROJECT.
I'M THINKING THAT THE COURT HAD INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE BAILING FOLKS OUT OF JAIL AND DOING THAT, BUT THAT'S NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE, UM, OF THE BAIL BOND, UM, DEPARTMENT THEY'RE LOCATED ON THE, UM, THE THIRD FLOOR OF THE, UM, OF THE COURTHOUSE.
THE BAIL BOND IS MAINLY FOR YOU, THE LAWYERS.
AND, UM, SINCE THEY MAY, WELL, YES, I MEAN, ASSIST THE JUDGES, WE SET THE BONDS, THEY GET ALL THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION THAT THEY CAN GET ON THE INTERVIEWS TO PRESENT TO US SO WE CAN, UM, SET A BOND.
BUT THAT'S WHERE YOU GO TO, UM, TO DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, I'LL LOOK AT THAT BOND FILE TO SEE WHAT THAT PERSON IS CHARGED WITH AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT A, UM, A BOND HAS BEEN SET.
WE ARE LOOKING AT SOME, I GUESS, SOME TWEAKING OF THE BAIL BONDS OFFICE, UM, IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
BUT RIGHT NOW WE HAD MADE A DEFINITE HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT? IF ANYTHING, UM, WE JUST RECENTLY, THIS YEAR HAD OUR LONG TIME, UM, UM, BAIL BOND COORDINATOR TO, TO RESIGN, UM, FRANK HOUSE.
UM, WE HAVE A, THE ASSISTANT, UM, GERARD WHO, UM, HAS FILLED IN THAT WAS NOT FILLED IN, HE IS THE BAIL BOND COORDINATOR AND HAS BEEN DOING A YEOMAN JOB AND MAKING SURE THAT OFFICE, UM, CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD.
BUT THIS WAS BEFORE FRANK LEFT AND BEFORE GERARD WAS, UM, UM, APPOINTED TO THE POSITION THAT WE, UM, BEEN LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF WAYS TO MAKE CHANGES TO THAT PARTICULAR OFFICE TO BETTER SERVE THE PUBLIC.
UM, BUT WE HAVE INTERVIEWS AT THE JAIL THAT ARE HOUSED AT THE JAIL.
SO WHEN SOMEONE GET ARRESTED, NO 10 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT, IF I'M THE CRIMINAL, IF I'M A JUDGE, THAT'S ON DUTY FOR THE CRIMINAL SIDE, I CALL THE PRISON TO OUR PERSON THAT'S HOUSED AT THE JAIL.
SO THAT PERSON CAN GIVE ME THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION IN TERMS OF THE PC, UM, THE PROB THE AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE, UM, HIS OR HER ARREST RECORD BREAD, OR NOT, THERE ARE ANY OUTSTANDING WARRANTS, OR THERE ARE ANY HOLES ON THAT INDIVIDUAL.
SO I CAN MAKE THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT, UM, I WAS SET THIS PERSON BONDED.
NOW, THERE ARE ALSO FOLKS AT THE JAIL THAT'S EMPLOYED BY THE, UM, BY THE SHERIFF THAT YOU, THE LAWYERS CALL TO GET THAT INFORMATION IN TERMS OF WHAT THE BOND IS SET AT.
BUT WE, THE 19TH JDC JUDGES, WE HAVE OUR OWN INDIVIDUALS STAFF THAT THE PRISON TO GIVE US INFORMATION SO WE CAN, UM, SO WE CAN SET BONDS.
[02:20:01]
DUTY COURT, UM, CIVIL DUTY COURT, IT USED TO BE HOUSED ON THE SECOND FLOOR.AS SOON AS YOU COME UP THE ESCALATOR, THEY WERE RIGHT THERE FOR YOU ALL TO BE ABLE TO, UM, HAVE ACCESS TO THEM.
THEY ARE NO LONGER HOUSED ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
THEY'RE NOW HOUSED ON THE SIXTH FLOOR.
AND THE REASON WHY WE MADE THAT MOVE IS SO WE CAN BRING THE RECOVERY COURT, UM, TO BE HOUSED AT THE COURTHOUSE THAT I TALKED TO YOU ABOUT EARLIER.
SO NOW THE RECOVERY COURT, UM, STAFF IS HOUSED ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
UM, WE HOUSED THEM ON THE SECOND FLOOR BECAUSE IT WAS MORE ACCESS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, JUST HAVING TO GO UP THE ESCALATOR TO GET TO THEM QUICKLY.
UM, AND THE DUTY COURT, WE MOVED HIM TO THE SIXTH FLOOR.
NOW ABOUT MAYBE FIVE YEARS AGO, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT CIVIL DUTY COURT, EACH ONE OF US ON THE SILVERSIDE, WE DO, UM, DUTY ONE WEEK AT A TIME.
AND FOR INSTANCE, IF I'M ON DUTY RIGHT NOW, SAY THREE, FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO, WHEN I'M ON DUTY, ALL MATTERS THAT ARE FILED IN DUTY COURT THAT WEEK, IF IT NEEDS SIGNATURE, IT CAN BE FOR A JUDGE, UH, MORE AVANT JUDGE KELLY, JUDGE, DON JOHNSON.
BUT IF I'M ON DUTY, IT CAME TO ME TO SIGN.
SO, UM, I WANT TO SAY BOMBARDED, BUT I WAS SIGNING EVERYBODY DUTY.
AND WHEN THEY WERE ON DUTY, THEY WERE SIGNING MY DUTY.
SO WE DECIDED ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF TO TWO YEARS AGO TO SAY, WAIT, LOOK, IF A MATTER IS FILED, INSTEAD OF SENDING ALL THAT TO ONE PARTICULAR JUDGE FOR HIM, SEE THE SIGN AND REVIEW, UM, WHILE WE'RE ON DUTY.
AND IF I'M NOT ON DUTY AND I'M NOT IN A TRIAL, I MAY BE SITTING IN MY OFFICE AND I'M NEVER SITTING IN MY OFFICE DOING NOTHING.
I JUST WANT TO LET HIM KNOW THAT I'M ALWAYS WORKING.
YOU KNOW, I'M READING, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M WORKING, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, W W WHY SHOULD ANOTHER JUDGE HAVE THE REVIEW PLEADINGS THAT'S GOING TO BE IN MY SECTION? WHY CAN'T I DO THAT MYSELF? SO WE, AS THE BODY DECIDED THAT, OKAY, DUTY MATTERS OF FILE.
THEY GO TO THE DUTY OFFICE TO DUTY, UM, STAFF, UM, UM, PROCESS IT, AND THEN SEND IT UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL JUDGES THAT IS FOR.
SO NOW WHEN I'M ON DUTY, AND THE ONLY THING THAT I HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT MAY NOT BE IN MY SECTION IS WHEN WE DO THE, UM, JUDICIAL COMMITMENT, BECAUSE THAT IS A COURT HEARING.
SO THEREFORE THAT'S WHAT I'M ON DUTY FOR.
IF I'M DOING JUDICIAL COMMITMENTS, I'M DOING, UM, CONFIRMATIONS OF THE FAULT THAT'S FOR ALL OF THE SECTIONS.
AND IF, UM, UM, UM, IF THERE'S A, A TRO OR EMERGENCY MATTER THAT COMES UP.
AND FOR INSTANCE, THAT IF HE'S IN THAT PARTICULAR SECTION AND HE, OR SHE MAY HAVE GONE OUT TO LUNCH, THEN THE DUTY JUDGE IS THERE TO REVIEW THAT AND SIGN IT, THOSE EMERGENCY MATTERS.
SO WE THOUGHT THAT MIGHT BE A MORE EFFICIENT WAY FOR US TO DO DUTY AS OPPOSED TO HAVING ONE JUDGE SIGNING PLEADINGS FOR ALL THE OTHER JUDGES.
SO EVERYBODY, UM, WILL BE SIGNING THEY ON THE, ON PLEADINGS QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS.
THE QUESTION IS, UM, IF SOMETHING IS FILED WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE, RATHER NOT THE CLERK OFFICE IS MAKING A DETERMINATION OR RETINITIS THEY DUTY MATTER OR NOT.
YOU DETERMINE WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED EVEN A PRODUCTIVE THE, THE, THE ORDER IN TERMS OF, UM, WHAT WE, UM, THE, THE DUTIES OF THE DUTY OFFICE.
SO WHEN A PARTICULAR MATTER LIKE EXECRATORY PROCESS OR SOUTHERN IS, IS SIGNED, I MEAN, IT'S FILED, THERE IS A LIST OF, OF, OF ITEMS THAT WE, THE 19TH JDC.
I SAID, THIS, THESE MATTERS ARE THE GO TO DUTY SUCCESSION MATTERS AND GO TO DUTY.
SO THE CLERK GOLFER HAS THAT LIST TO KNOW THAT IF THIS PARTICULAR, UM, ITEM IS, UM, UM, IS FILED, THEN IT WOULD GO TO, TO THE DUTY, UM, COURT, AND THEN THE DUTY COURT PERSONNEL, THEY WERE PROCESSED AND MAKE SURE THEY HAVE ALL THE DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS THEY NEED.
THEN THEY'LL PUSH IT UP TO US FOR US TO REVIEW IT.
AND IF WE DEEMED THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE, THEN WE'LL SIGN IT.
AND THERE WAS ONE THING THAT YOU DID MENTION IN YOUR QUESTION, UM, WHEN YOU WAS ASKING YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WALKTHROUGHS,
[02:25:01]
UM, WE NO LONGER HAVE WALKTHROUGHS WALKTHROUGHS BACK IN THE DAYS USED TO BE, YOU GO DOWN WITH YOUR PAPER DOCUMENT, YOU FILE IT WITH THE, UM, WITH THE CLERK OF COURT.YOU ASKED THE CLERK OR COURT, CAN YOU TAKE THAT UP TO THE JUDGES OFFICE TO GET THE JUDGE, TO SIGN IT? AND, UM, THEN, UM, YOU WOULD WALK IT THROUGH AND I, AND THE JUDGE WILL AT IT.
HE OR SHE ASSIGNED IT AND GAVE IT BACK TO YOU.
YOU CAN TAKE IT BACK DOWN TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
AND THIS IS STRICTLY WILSON FIELDS TALKING.
UM, REASON BEING NOT SO MUCH, UM, I DON'T LIKE A TERM.
I KNOW THERE WAS SOME EMERGENCY MATTERS, BUT I PERSONALLY LIKE THE CLERK TO DO THE CLERK'S JOB.
MEANING YOU FILE SOMETHING WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
AND NOW CLERK IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE IT GETS TO WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO GO.
AND I'M NOT, I DON'T HAVE ONE INSTANCE WHERE AN ATTORNEY OR A RUNNER OR ANYBODY FILED A DOCUMENT, AND THEN DIDN'T BRING IT TO US.
I SAW, I CAN'T SAY THAT'S WHY I DON'T LIKE IT.
SO I'M NOT SAYING THAT I JUST, I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A LITTLE HESITANT ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I JUST THINK THAT IF IT'S THE CLERK, UM, RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THOSE DOCUMENTS GET TO THE JUDGES, THEN IT OUGHT TO BE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.
AND YOU KNOW, WHAT, IF A RUNNER, YOU KNOW, FALSE UP THEN SAY, THEY'RE GOING TO WALK IT UP.
YOU KNOW, THEY RING THE BUZZER TO OUR OFFICE, NO ONE ANSWER.
AND THEN THEY TAKE THAT DOCUMENT BACK TO THEIR, UM, THEIR, UM, LAW OFFICE.
AND NOW WE DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT AND THE CLERK OFFICE HAS DONE AN A AND I MUST COMMEND THEM FOR THIS.
UM, I LIKE THE SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE WITH, WE'RE TRYING TO GO EVERYTHING ELECTRONICALLY.
SO NOW EVEN IF YOU COULD WALK US UP AND YOU CAN'T WALK IN AND THINK UP NOW, ONCE YOU FILED A DOCUMENT WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE ONLY WAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET IT, NOW YOU CAN WALK US UP A COURTESY COPY.
BUT THE CLERK OFFICE IS GOING TO HAVE TO PROCESS IT THROUGH WHATEVER MEANS THEY PROCESS IT AND THEN SEND IT TO US ELECTRONICALLY.
AND THEY'RE GOING TO SEND IT TO MY, UH, MY JUDICIAL ASSISTANT.
SHE'S GOING TO LOOK AT IT AND DO WHATEVER SHE NEEDS TO DO WITH IT.
AND THEN SHE'S GOING TO SEND IT TO ME ELECTRONICALLY, AND I WILL LOOK AT IT, UM, ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED IT AND SEND IT BACK DOWN.
THE RESPONSE, UM, TO, UM, MY ANSWER TO THE QUESTION WAS, UM, JUST FEELS, HE THINK HE THOUGHT THAT I WAS THE BEST THING SINCE APPLE PIE, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO CAME, BUT THE RESPONSE WAS, UM, YOU APPRECIATE THE SYSTEM THAT NOW THAT THE CLERK OFFICE HAS, UH, A LIST OF SHIT, KNOW EXACTLY WHAT MATTERS OR DUTY MATTERS.
NOW, SOME MATTERS MAY BE DUTY MATTERS THAT MAY END UP BECOMING DIVISIONAL.
IF YOU HAVE A, UM, UM, SORT OF I'M LOOKING FOR, IF THERE NEEDS TO BE A CONTRADICTORY HEARING OR SOMETHING ON IT, THEN IF THE CLERK'S OFFICE KNOW TO SEND IT THE VISUAL, AND IF THEY DON'T, THEY SEND IT TO DUTY, THEN THAT'S WHERE ALL DUTY STAFF COMES IN.
AGAIN, LOOK AT IT AND SEE, OH, THERE'S A HEARING FOR THIS MATTER.
SO THAT NEEDS TO GO DIVISIONAL.
AND THAT PARTICULAR JUDGE WOULD, UM, WE'RE HERE AND THE DUTY JUDGE WON'T, UM, WON'T LOOK AT IT.
ALL RIGHT, MAKE SURE I TRY TO REPEAT THE QUESTION AND MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION SINCE WE HAVE ELECTRONIC FILING
[02:30:02]
IS A REDUNDANT TO WALK UP A COPY TO THE JUDGE'S OFFICE, A PHYSICAL COPY.NO, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT BECAUSE WHEN YOU ELECTRONICALLY FOLLOW IT, WE IN OUR OFFICE, WE NOT GOING TO GET IT IMMEDIATELY.
SO IT MAY BE A DAY OR TWO BEFORE WE GET THE ELECTRONIC FILING BASED ON WHATEVER THE CLERK HAS TO DO TO PROCESS IT AND ALL THAT.
SO THAT'S, WHAT'S, I DON'T DISCOURAGE, UM, UM, COURTESY COPIES.
UM, FOR INSTANCE, I HAD, I GOT ONE TODAY.
UM, SO THAT GAVE ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT IT WAS.
SO BY THE TIME IT GOT TO ME, I'M READY TO SIGN, REJECT, OR DO WHATEVER I NEED TO DO WITH IT, BUT WE ARE NOT GOING TO SIGN A PHYSICAL DOCUMENT.
UM, WE'RE ONLY GOING TO SIGN IT ELECTRONICALLY.
SO, AND SINCE WE, SPEAKING OF E-FILING, UM, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, AS YOU ALL KNOW, HAS INSTITUTED THE, UM, THE FALLING AND WHEN YOU EAT FALL, THEN IS FILED IMMEDIATELY, OPPOSED TO, IF YOU DECIDE TO ON A FAX FILE, THEN YOU GOT TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE HARD COPY BEFORE IT'S CONSIDERED FILED.
AND IF INDIVIDUALS FACTS FILE AND I GET IT, AND I DON'T SEE WHAT ORIGINAL HAS BEEN FILED TIMELY, THEN I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO DEAL WITH THEM.
WE COULD BE IN COURT ON ROAD DAY, BUT IT HAS, IT COULD, BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY WHAT'S SINCE SAY PROPERLY, HE HAS NOT BEEN FILED WITH THE CLERK UNTIL, UM, YOU, UM, BRING THE HARD COPY AND ACTUALLY FOLLOW WITH THE CLERK.
BUT WHEN YOU EAT FALL IS DONE IMMEDIATELY AND, UM, AND YOU GOT THE E-SIGNATURES AND WHEN WE FIRST GOT IT, UH, CALLED THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND SAID, WELL, THERE'S NO ORIGINAL SIGNATURE.
THEN I HAD TO GO BACK AND READ, UM, ON .
OH, OKAY, WELL THAT THAT'S SUFFICE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I GET, LOOK HERE AT AWAY SOMETIMES TRYING TO MAKE SURE ALL THE T'S ARE CROSSED AND I'S ARE DOTTED AND ALL THAT, BUT HE FALLING IS A WAY THAT I KNOW THE CLERK OFFICE IS TRYING TO ENCOURAGE, UM, INTERVIEWS TO GO IN TERMS OF ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I MOVE ON.
NEXT, UM, ONE OF OUR OTHER DEPARTMENTS AT THE COURT IS THE JURY MANAGEMENT.
AND SOME FOLKS MAY THINK THAT THAT'S NOT WHILE, UH, YOU KNOW, MAY NOT BE AS A VITAL ROLE FOR THE COURT AS SOMEBODY OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
BUT I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S PRETTY, YOU KNOW, THE HEARTBEAT ALMOST OF THE COURT, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE, UM, JURY TRIALS AND, AND INDIVIDUALS THERE FOR THE JURY TRIALS.
UH, IT'S PROBABLY BEEN ABOUT TWO, MAYBE THREE YEARS AGO.
WE HAD TO, UM, EVEN TWEAK OUR OWN, UM, JURY MANAGEMENT NOTICE SYSTEM.
UM, I FORGET WHAT CASE IT WAS, BUT IT WAS A, I THINK IT WAS A CASE OUT OF SHREVEPORT, UM, ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE THAT HAD A CHANGE OF VENUE AND THEY WAS TRYING THE CASE IN EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH.
AND THEN THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY, UM, NOTICED THAT IT WAS A LACK OF YOUNG FOLKS, UM, IN THE JURY POOL AND UNBEKNOWNST TO US THAT WE DIDN'T THE WAY THE SYSTEM WAS SENDING OUT, UM, WHAT YOU CALL IT.
UM, JURY NOTICES, IT WAS EXCLUDING SOMEBODY YOUNGER POPULATION.
SO WE HAD TO GO BACK AND MAKE SURE AND TALK TO THE, UM, FOLKS.
WE GOT THE SOFTWARE FOR THEM AND MAKE SURE ALL THAT WAS TWEAKED.
SO, UM, MAKE SURE THAT WE CAPTURE EVERYONE AND TO SERVE ON JURY.
YOU GOT TO BE 18 TO, UM, 18 OR OLDER, BUT IF YOU'RE 70 OR OLDER, YOU CAN OPT OUT OF SERVING DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO, BUT YOU GET THAT EXEMPTION.
AND WE ALSO LOOK AT EXEMPTION FOR OUR STUDENTS.
IT'S NOT ABSOLUTE, BUT IF YOU'RE A STUDENT, UM, MOST OF US LET ME SPEAK FOR ME.
UM, BUT IF YOU'RE A STUDENT AND YOU COME TO DO YOUR JURY SERVICE AND IT'S DOING, UM, DURING THE SEMESTER, AND YOU CAN SHOW PROOF THAT YOU ARE A STUDENT AND, AND, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY HAVE AN EXAM THAT WEEK OR WHATEVER.
WE MAY JUST POSTPONE YOUR JURY SERVICE AND BRING YOU BACK DURING SPRING BREAK OR SOMETHING TO THAT NATURE.
THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT SCHOOL.
YOU DON'T JUST MISS GOING TO THE BEACH.
SO, BUT, UM, SO FORTH, I, I MUST COME IN OUR JURY MANAGEMENT OFFICE BECAUSE THEY HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB IN MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE, UM, NECESSARY JURORS, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO MOVE THE COURT ALONG.
AND AS I TALK ABOUT JURY MANAGEMENT, LET ME TALK ABOUT JURY TRIALS.
UM, POST PANDEMIC, WE'RE STILL INDEPENDENT.
WE ARE TRYING OUR BEST TO GET BACK TO COURT AS NORMAL, UM, YOU KNOW, PRE PANDEMIC,
[02:35:02]
BUT DON'T BE SURPRISED IF YOU HAVE A JURY TRIAL.AND INSTEAD OF HAVING THE JUROR SITTING IN THE JURY BOX, EVEN DURING JURY SELECTION, UM, WE HAVE, UH, UM, PUT JURORS IN THE AUDIENCE AND ANYONE WHO WANTS TO COME IN AND WATCH THE TRIAL, WE HAVE SET UP, UM, UH, UM, UM, EMPTY COURTROOMS AND PUT MONITORS IN THERE FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO VIEW JURY TRIALS.
UM, WE ALSO, ONE OF OUR JUDGES HAVE DONE A SURVEY, DO A SURVEY WITH THE JURORS WHEN THEY COME IN TO SEE RIGHT, A NOD, IF THEY ARE UNCOMFORTABLE SITTING IN THE JURY BOX NEXT TO EACH OTHER.
AND IF ANY ONE JUROR SAYS YES, THEN WE GO TO OUR, UM, OUR NEW SYSTEM OF PUTTING THE JURORS IN THE, UM, IN, IN THE AUDIENCE.
AND THAT HAS SEEMED TO WORK EVEN IN THE MIDST OF THE PANDEMIC.
I THINK WE WERE ONE OF THE ONLY, UM, JDCS WAS CAPABLE OF, UM, OF DOING JURY TRIALS.
AND I COME IN, UM, UM, THE JUDGES, THE STAFF, AND THE LAWYERS, UM, AND, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC FOR BEING PACING AND WORKING WITH US TO TRY TO CONTINUE HAVE THE WHEELS OF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SPIN.
AND WE HAD SOME CRIMINAL JURY TRIALS ON CIVIL JURY TRIALS DURING THE PANDEMIC.
AND LIKE I SAID, WE'RE STILL LANDED AND WE'RE STILL HAVING JURY TRIALS.
SO IF YOU HAVE A JURY TRIAL, JUST KNOW THAT THE 19TH JDC IS EQUIPPED AND READY TO, UM, CONTINUE FORWARD WITH JURY TRIALS, WE HAVE BEEN ASKED, UM, RATHER THAN NOT, WE ARE GOING TO LIVE OR REMOVE THE MASS MANDATE FOR THE NINETEENS ATC.
UM, AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, THE ANSWER IS NO, WE WANT THE PUBLIC TO FEEL SAFE WHEN THEY COME IN.
UM, NOW SAYING THAT WE SAID, WE'RE NOT LIFTING THE MANDATE OF MASS, UH, FOR THE, FOR THE BUILDING, FOR THE 19 JDC, FOR THE COME INSIDE THE BUILDING AND TO BE IN ANY OF THE, UM, GENERAL PUBLIC AREAS.
BUT WHEN YOU GO IN ANY PARTICULAR JUDGE'S COURTROOM AND HE, OR SHE DETERMINES THAT, OKAY, YOU CAN TAKE YOUR MASS OFF THEN FINE.
THAT'S W WE LEFT THAT UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL JUDGES, BUT WE DIDN'T WANT, YOU KNOW, THE GENERAL PUBLIC WALKING IN THE BUILDING FEELING UNCOMFORTABLE BECAUSE INTERVIEWS DON'T HAVE MASKS ON.
AND SO IF YOU'RE IN THE PUBLIC AREAS, YOU MUST HAVE A MASK ON.
AND I WAS STAFF, UM, THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SAME RULE THAT PARTICULAR JUDGE THE SIDES IN HIS OR HER OFFICE, UM, SPACE, RATHER NOT THAT STAFF AS TO, UM, TO WEAR A MASK OR NOT.
BUT IF THEY LEAVE OUT OF THAT OFFICE AND GO TO THE RESTAURANT, THEY MUST WEAR A MASK.
AND WE FELT LIKE THAT HAS, UM, WORKED WELL FOR US IN TRYING TO, UM, NOT HAVE TO SHUT DOWN THE COURTHOUSE AGAIN.
AND SPEAKING OF SHUTTING DOWN THE COURTHOUSE, HOW WE NAVIGATED THAT WE ALREADY QUIT, DON'T WANT TO, BUT ANY EVENT WE HAVE TO SHUT DOWN A COURTROOM FOR THE COURT HOUSE FOR ANY PARTICULAR REASON, FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.
UM, WE HAVE MADE SURE THAT WE CAN WORK ELECTRONICALLY TO CONTINUE TO, UM, TO STAND UP THE COURT.
UM, WHEN THE PANDEMIC FIRST HIT ALL OF US, MADE SURE OUR JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE, I WAS STAFF ATTORNEYS, UM, HAD LAPTOPS AND WE'RE ABLE TO REMOTE IN TO THE COURTHOUSE TO, UM, TO HANDLE CERTAIN MATTERS.
CAUSE THEY WERE STILL, ALTHOUGH THE COURTHOUSE WAS CLOSED, WE LEFT A PORTION OF THE CLERK'S OFFICE OPEN BECAUSE THINGS STILL HAD TO BE FILED.
WE STILL HAD TO DEAL WITH TROS AND EMERGENCY MATTERS.
SO WE ARE EQUIPPED AS BEST AS WE KNOW TO, UM, TO BE READY IF, UM, ANOTHER PANDEMIC OR, OR HURRICANE OR WHATEVER HITS US.
AND WE HAVE TO CLOSE DOWN FOR A FEW DAYS.
AND I, UM, ATTRIBUTED THAT TO THE STAFF OF THE 19TH JDC AND ALL THE JUDGES WHO WORK TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, THAT WE WERE ABLE TO DO.
SO, UM, TRAFFIC COURT, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU ALL FREQUENT TRAFFIC COURT.
UM, BUT WE HAVE OUR OWN TRAFFIC COURT, UM, DEPARTMENT IS LOCATED ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
UM, JUDGE DON JOHNSON, UM, PRESIDES OVER TRAFFIC COURT.
UM, UM, HE THEY'RE LIKE FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.
[02:40:01]
WE ALWAYS TEASE TIM JOHNSON ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT TIME HE GETS THE WORK, BUT HE HE'S THERE EARLY IN THE MORNING.AND I GOT TO DO ANOTHER PHRASE WORD RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS NO, I THINK THE JEFFERSON, YEAH, THE JEFFERSON'S ALL RIGHT.
THE, YOUR NEXT PHRASE WORD IS, UM, THE JEFFERSON'S, BUT JUDGE JOHNSON, UM, PRESIDES OVER TRAFFIC COURT, TRAFFIC COURT IS HELD ON THE SECOND FLOOR IN ONE OF THE, UM, THE COMMISSIONERS, UM, COURTROOM.
UM, WE HANDLE CORTISOL TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS FROM STATE POLICE, SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, UM, LSU AND SOUTHERN.
SO, AND WE ARE, UM, AND YOU CAN GO ONLINE AND PAY TRAFFIC FINES.
THAT'S BEEN AN ADDITION TO THE 19TH JDC.
WE ARE WORKING HARD TO TRY TO CATCH UP WITH, UM, ALL THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY WE ARE TRYING TO, UM, GET AS TECHNOLOGY SAVVY AS POSSIBLE.
AND OUR DIRECTOR OF OUR, UM, TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT AT THE 19 JDC, UM, MR. KEVIN BOWS AND HIS STAFF HAS BEEN DOING GREAT IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT WE, UM, THAT WE ARE UP TO SPEED ON, ON TECHNOLOGY.
AND HOPEFULLY WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS, UM, I SAY HE HEARS BECAUSE AS WE CATCH UP WITH TECHNOLOGY, IT CHANGES ON US.
SO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO MAKE THE 19TH JDC AS TECHNICAL AS POSSIBLE.
AND THEN THAT'S GOING TO, YOU KNOW, CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR OLD HEADS LIKE ME.
SO I GOT TO TRY TO GET UP TO SPEED ON ALL THIS TECHNOLOGY THAT YOU ALL HAVE IN YOUR, UM, YOU KNOW, POSSESSION AND WANT TO SPEAK IN, ON TECHNOLOGY, UH, OUTSIDE OF ALL OUR COURTROOMS, UM, BEFORE YOU WALK IN.
AND I THINK, UH, MANY OF YOU ARE, MAY NOT SEE IT, OR, BUT WE HAVE A SIGN THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE THE ELECTRONIC DEVICES, UM, ON IN COURT.
UM, IT'S NOT SO MUCH BECAUSE WE DID 19 JDC JUDGES.
UM, THEY'LL WANT YOU TO HAVE YOUR TECHNOLOGY, BUT WE ALSO GOT, UH, RULES IN TERMS OF, UM, UH, RECORDING IN COURT AND, AND ALL THAT THAT'S BEEN HANDED DOWN FROM THE SUPREME COURT.
SO ONE WAY THAT WE TRY TO PROTECT OURSELVES IS HAVE THAT SIGN OUT THERE.
AND SOME OF OUR DEPUTIES MINDS, FOR SURE, ON DEPUTY DUNKIN, WE SEE YOU'RE USING ELECTRONIC DEVICES.
IF YOU'RE NOT SITTING AT COUNSEL TABLE ONE COUNSEL RAISING HIS HAND, LIKE YOU HAD MY PHONE OR WHATEVER HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM US, DON'T GET MAD AT THE JUDGES.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PROTECT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PROCEEDINGS, IF YOU WILL.
SO WE DO THAT JUST TO TRY TO PROTECT THE, UM, THE PROCEEDINGS, UM, DRUG LAB IS YOU WOULD THINK, YOU KNOW, ON THE CIVIL SIDE THAT WE DON'T USE THAT DEPARTMENT, BUT WE DO, UM, THERE ARE TIMES WHERE WE MAY HAVE INDIVIDUALS COME INTO COURT THAT'S, UM, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT WE MAY HAVE A SUSPICION THAT MAY, UM, NEED TO FREQUENT OUR LAB, BUT WE, BUT CERTAINLY WE USE IT ON THE, UM, ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE.
UM, THE DRUG LAB IS ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF THE, UM, OF THE 19TH JDC.
AND I KNOW MANY OF YOU ALL PROBABLY HAVE NOT BEEN IN THERE, UH, BUT IT IS A TRULY FUNCTIONAL, UM, I WANNA SAY STATE OF THE ART, BUT IT'S A NICE DRUG LAB TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, WE CAN COLLECT THE SAMPLES THAT WE NEED TO COLLECT.
AND PRIVACY, UM, ALSO IS, UM, IS, IS, IS, IS VERY, UM, STRICT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN HAVE FEMALES, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVE TO DO DRUG SAMPLES AND WE MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, THE MALES THAT DOING TRUCK SAMPLES, ALL THAT STUFF IS, UM, IS, IS, IS SECRET AND PROTECTED WHERE NO ONE SHOULD FEEL THAT THEY'RE, UM, BEING EXPOSED TO, TO ANYONE ELSE.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS, OBSERVATIONS, SOLUTION PROBLEMS. ALL RIGHT.
UM, YOU MENTIONED SOME OF THE CHAIN, LIKE I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING, SOME OF THE CHANGES WE WERE HAVING AT THE 19TH JDC, AND I GUESS I'LL PUT THIS OUT THERE NOW.
UM, WE ARE ALSO GOING TO, AT THE BEGINNING OF NEXT YEAR, WE'RE GOING TO BE ANNOUNCING AND I'LL JUST LET YOU ALL KNOW.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO BE ANNOUNCING, UM, THE POSITION OF OUR JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR.
UM, OUR JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR, UM, IS, IS MOVING ON.
UM, UM, HE HAS, UM, TAKEN OTHER EMPLOYMENT AND WE THANK
[02:45:01]
HIM FOR THE TIME THAT HE HAS BEEN WITH US.AND HE HAS REALLY DONE A GREAT JOB IN MOVING THAT OFFICE FORWARD AND PUTTING SOME THINGS IN PLACE THAT, UM, THAT'S GOING TO HELP US, UM, TO COME.
BUT WE ARE GOING TO ANNOUNCE BY MID JANUARY WHEN WE GET BACK FROM THE BREAK, UM, FOR A NEW, UM, JUDICIAL MENTOR SPRAYED, OR TO CONTINUE, UM, MOVING THE 19 JDC FORWARD.
BUT I CAN'T EXPRESS ENOUGH, YOU KNOW, THE ADVANCEMENTS THAT WE HAVE MADE, UM, WORKING TOGETHER, ALL 15 JUDGES, UM, WORKING TOGETHER.
I MEAN, JUST LIKE ANY BODY OR ANY FAMILY, WE DO HAVE OUR MOMENTS WHERE WE, YOU KNOW, WE DEBATE WITH ONE ANOTHER, BUT IT'S HEALTHY DEBATE ONLY TO, UM, TO MOVE THE COURT FORWARD.
AND THINK I GOT A FEW MORE MINUTES, BUT, UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? YES, SIR.
UM, THE CROSSING WAS WHAT PET PEES ON BRIEF ORAL ARGUMENTS THAT I HAVE, UM, STOPPED WRITING SO MUCH.
UM, BUT NO, CERTAINLY, UM, BRIEF YOUR CASE.
I EVER YOU THINK, UM, YOU NEED TO, TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS TO US.
UM, I HAVE MY OWN LITTLE PET PEEVES ABOUT WHEN WE'RE IN, UM, WHEN WE IN COURT AND I THINK EVERYBODY COME TO KNOW MY LITTLE PET PEEVES BY NOW, YOU KNOW, NO CLICKING OUT A PIN KIND OF THING THAT FOR SOME REASON, I DON'T KNOW WHY I HEAR THAT WHEN I'M ON THE BENCH AND IF SOMEBODY'S JUST SITTING THERE AND DOING THIS AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO IT FAST, I JUST HEAR IT.
AND THAT KIND OF DISTRACT ME FROM LISTENING TO, TO YOUR ARGUMENT OR SOMEONE ELSE'S ARGUMENT.
UM, I LIKE INTERVIEWS TO BE ON TIME.
I DO KNOW, AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THINGS HAPPEN.
UM, YOU KNOW, KIDS, UM, TRAFFIC OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.
I WOULD SAY, JUST GIVE US A COURTESY CALL AT LEAST TO THE OFFICE TO LET US KNOW THAT YOU MAY BE RUNNING A LITTLE LATE AND THAT HELPS THE OTHER ATTORNEY AS WELL.
NOW, ONE OF MY BIGGEST, WELL, I'M GONNA SAY BIGGEST, BUT SPEAKING OF TARDINESS, UM, YOU KNOW, WE ALL SAID THINGS ON OUR DOCKET AND, AND, AND THINGS HAPPEN, BUT IT DISTURBS ME WHEN I COME TO WORK AND I WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A BUNCH OF STATUS CONFERENCES OR HEARING, AND THE LAWYERS FOR EITHER SIDE, UM, THEY DON'T SHOW UP BECAUSE THEY HAVE DECIDED AMONGST THEMSELVES THAT THEY WANT TO PASS THIS STATUS CONFERENCE AND THAT'S FINE, BUT AT LEAST LET US KNOW, UM, THAT YOU DON'T SHOW UP.
CAUSE I THINK IF YOU GOT A MATTER, BE IT A HEARING OR A STATUS AND, YOU KNOW, WE JUST DON'T SHOW UP THAT DAY.
UM, SO I JUST SAY LEASE AND THEN MOST LAWYERS DO TRY TO CALL US.
I SENT IN SOMETHING, BUT THERE ARE SOME WHO, WHO DON'T, BUT IF YOU, IF YOU KNOW, YOUR MATTER IS NOT GOING TO GO, THEN JUST, JUST LET US KNOW.
AND, BUT AS FAR AS OTHER PET PEEVES, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE LAWYERS THAT PRACTICE IN THE 19TH JDC, YOU KNOW, AND AT LEAST IN MY MIND, THAT'S WHY WE CALL IT PRACTICING.
WE ALL DOING OUR BEST TO TRY TO, UM, DO THOSE THINGS WE THINK ARE RIGHT TO, UM, TO MOVE AND UPHOLD THE PROFESSION.
SO I THINK EVERYBODY IS, UM, IT'S OKAY.
UM, THE QUESTION WAS, UM, IN A TALK ABOUT, UM, UM, SOME CHANGES OR TWEAKS THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE WITH THE BAIL BOND, UM, UM, FOR THE 19 JDC, RIGHT? OR NOT, WE MAKE THE AFFIDAVIT PROBABLE CALLS, UM, AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY.
THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS I DON'T WANT TO SAY NO.
AND I'M HESITANT TO SAY YES, BECAUSE WE ALL LOOK INTO TRY TO DO MORE THINGS ELECTRONICALLY AND MORE THINGS TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC HAS ALL THE ACCESS THAT, UM, THAT WE CAN GIVE THEM TO, TO, TO LOOK AT INFORMATION AND BE HONEST, JUDGE.
UM, DON JOHNSON, UM, HAS BEEN WORKING IN THAT AREA ALONG WITH JUDGE CRIFASI TO TRY TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO MAKE THE BAIL BOND OFFICE.
UM, I, WHEN I SAY MORE EFFICIENT, I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE DEFICIENT
[02:50:01]
NOW, BUT JUST TRY TO MAKE THINGS, UM, UM, BETTER FOR THE PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, THE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS.UM, THE QUESTION WAS, DO I STILL GO DOWN TO THE JURY MANAGEMENT ROOM ON MONDAY MORNING TO TALK TO THE JURORS? I HAVE NOT SINCE, UM, UM, UH, SINCE THE PANDEMIC I PERSONALLY CHOSE NOT TO, UM, TO GO, WELL, I WENT AFTER THE PANDEMIC ONCE WE GOT BACK, BUT I DECIDED I STOPPED AND MAYBE SOMETIME NEXT YEAR I MAY.
AND THE REASON WHY I STOPPED IS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY FEELS SAFE AND NOT KEEP FOLKS IN THERE LONGER THAN WHAT WE HAD TO, NOT THAT I WAS KEEPING THEM IN THERE.
I MEAN, BUT, UM, BUT W BUT WE, BUT NO, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, NO.
AND WE START, WE USED THE SUMMONS, THINK ABOUT 300 SOME JURORS.
UM, EVERY WEEK WE CUT THAT DOWN TO ABOUT 1 25, SO WE CAN, UM, SPACE THEM OUT IN THE JURY MANAGEMENT ROOM, BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN, YOU KNOW, SAFETY.
SO, BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT'S PROBABLY STARTING IN 2022, I PROBABLY STARTED BACK GOING DOWN TO JURY MANAGEMENT JUST TO, UM, TO GREET THE JURORS AND TO, UM, GO OVER THEIR JURY QUALIFICATIONS WITH THEM.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS, CONCERNS, OBSERVATIONS SOLUTIONS.
UM, AND W YOU KNOW, FOR THOSE WHO ARE VIEWING VIRTUALLY, WE GOT AN UPCOMING L'OREAL I ASSUME IN THE AUDIENCE, UM, SHE ATTENDS MCKINLEY MIDDLE MAGNET SCHOOL.
SHE'S IN SIXTH GRADE AT MCKINLEY, MIDDLE MAGNET, AND HOPEFULLY SOMETHING I'VE SAID, UH, DONE UP HERE WITH CONTINUE TO HOPEFULLY ENCOURAGE HER TO COME TO OUR NOBLE PROFESSION.
UM, SO THANKS FOR JOINING US, MS. DUPONT, DO YOU GET YOUR HOURS LI UM, CREDIT WHEN, UH, ALL RIGHT.
WELL, ANYTHING ELSE, IF THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER, THANK YOU ALL.
AND I'VE ENJOYED, UM, TALKING TO Y'ALL THIS HOUR TEACHERS.
THANKS FOR SPENDING TIME WITH US TODAY.
UH, Y'ALL THAT'S GOING TO CONCLUDE THE MCOE SECTION OF TODAY'S PROGRAM.
WE STILL HAVE FOR THE GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS HERE, WE STILL HAVE THE GOVERNMENT ETHICS TRAINING.
THAT'S GOING TO BE TAKING PLACE FROM FOUR TO FIVE O'CLOCK.
UM, AND OUR PRESENTER IS GOING TO BE MS. ELENA BRAND'S HOURS.
SHE IS HERE, UH, FROM THE PERSONNEL SECTION.
SHE'S OUR SECTION CHIEF HERE AT THE PARISH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UH, WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE HER AND THAT WE'RE GOING TO JUMP RIGHT INTO THAT HOUR NOW.