Some Words from the Louisiana Chief Justice

Terms have been coined to describe undesirable traits a judge may develop as a result of wearing a judicial robe–such as “Black Robe Fever” or “Robe-itis.” Newly elected judges in Louisiana have been warned of this affliction. The symptoms include becoming self-righteous, self-centered, self-serving, pompous, and acting as if the judge is above the law or the law does not apply to a judge, as contrasted to being a servant of the people and a disciple of the law. Manifestations include possessing traits of bias, prejudice, abuse of judicial power, and being overly authoritative, insensitive, and disrespectful. Other traits include a lack of civility, poor temperament, extreme impatience, and overstepping authority by acting outside of the bounds of legal responsibility and engaging in misconduct which undermines public trust.

Displays of disrespect, disdain, volatility, and a lack of courage to follow the law as written have no place in judging. Abuse of power involves using the judicial power for personal gain, partisanship, politics, or favoritism, or to intimidate or retaliate against others who do not bend to the judge’s will. Such behavior fosters distrust of courts and alienation of those who turn to courts for resolution of issues.

Judges who engage in these behaviors lose sight of the fact they were elected to be a public servant assigned to resolve issues properly brought before a judge, to work to improve the system of justice, and to lead by example so as to ensure the rule of law is respected and followed. {Faced with a red light, the respondent ignored the obligation to stop as if the law did not apply to him and then berated a police officer attempting to ensure public safety.} This type of behavior reflects poorly on our system of justice and other judges, exhibits a lack of respect for the law and ultimately adversely impacts our system of government.

There are countless attributes associated with the making of a “good,” “just,” fair,” or “honorable” judge. As Founding Father Alexander Hamilton stated metaphorically, the judiciary possesses neither the purse nor the sword. Respect for judicial decisions and the finality provided by judicial decisions can only be assured if there is respect for the judges who toil vigorously each day in the vineyards of justice.

People who cloak themselves in judicial robes are, beneath that garment, people who possess all manner of human frailties. However, the solemn oath taken by a judge demands that each individual comport to certain ideals such as impartiality; independence from politics, partisanship, and personalities; fairness; respect; an understanding of human nature; compassion; level-headedness; even-handedness; discernment; perspicuity; a work ethic that demonstrates being prepared; diligence; and effectiveness and efficiency in resolving issues before the court. Judges must strive to make decisions that are sound, based on the objective evaluation of facts and evidence, and apply the law as written by the legislature and develop the ability to explain their rulings clearly.

Judges face the profound emotional and mental drudgery of making life-changing decisions that will undoubtedly impact those who appear before them. Their work is compounded by significant caseloads, administrative duties and ceremonial obligations, and, too often, by unfounded criticism. Deciding matters based on what is momentarily popular has no place on the scales of justice. Many decisions judges are called on to make daily, and often multiple times a day, would defy the wisdom of the Biblical Judge Solomon. When Solomon was called on to decide what he desired most of all, he responded “an understanding heart” to discern right from wrong, while referring to himself as a servant.

The actions of respondent described in the majority opinion, as well as other actions that were omitted therefrom, strike at the very core of our system of justice and risks the alienation of both litigants and citizens in that they demonstrate failed attempts to justify or explain his behavior and a lack of remorse, which together raise a serious concern about his ability to understand–a trait essential to one who sits in judgment of others.

{Respondent stated multiple times that he was so worried and focused on getting home to his daughter that he was not in his right mind and reacted poorly to being pulled over for running a red light. Respondent acknowledged that he never told Officer Dominique Robinson (the officer) he was in a hurry and his daughter was sick, but he stated that was because he was frustrated and not thinking clearly. Yet, respondent told the supervising officer who arrived on the scene that he had “all the time in the world” because he had just left the gym and was going to wash his truck, and he twice turned back to re-engage with and yell at the officers after receiving his ticket instead of simply driving off.

Respondent’s words and actions that day belied his insistence that his actions arose out of concern about getting home to his daughter, leaving the Commission to weigh whether he was dishonest in his explanations or whether his anger after getting pulled over was so pervasive that it overrode his legitimate concern for his daughter and caused him to instead waste precious minutes at the traffic stop and facetiously state that he had “all the time in the world” to contest the violation.

Although not readily apparent from the transcript, respondent’s demeanor at his appearance before the Commission suggested that he generally has a short fuse and is quick to lose control of his emotions, such that his behavior at the traffic stop was not an isolated incident limited to those circumstances. In fact, another witness testified that respondent has a “hot temper” and recounted when respondent got angry and cursed during a meeting of 10 judges after being aggravated by the planned renovations to the courthouse.

In addition to the actions pointed out in the majority opinion, the Commission observed:

[The officer]’s dash camera video begins when he is stopped at a red light in the right lane. He accelerates after the light turns green, and [respondent]’s truck can be seen passing him in the left lane. [Respondent] drives down the entirety of a block with the upcoming traffic light clearly red and then runs through that red light, prompting [the officer] to turn on his sirens and lights. When [respondent] pulls over, he immediately gets out of his car—before [the officer]’s car even comes to a complete stop—and approaches him.

Notably, respondent did not watch the body and dash camera videos before responding to the Office of Special Counsel’s initial inquiry letter or his sworn statement, even though he was provided same[.] He watched the videos for the first and only time a few days after his sworn statement in March 2024 and did not view them again in preparation for his appearance before the Commission. Respondent stated that he did not need to watch the videos more than once because he realized he was wrong and took responsibility. Despite this insistence that he could “freely admit that day I was wrong,” respondent did not unequivocally acknowledge running the red light to the Commission. Instead, when first asked by the Commission, respondent stated that after he got the ticket, a friend of his who was an assistant district attorney and viewed the videos told him that it was “close,” but it looked like he ran the light. He then made ambivalent statements to the Commission such as, “[i]f you want to say I ran the red light, I ran the red light.”

It was obvious to the Commission upon viewing the officer’s dash camera video (in which respondent is seen driving the length of at least an entire block with the upcoming light red before running it) that it was not anything near a “close call.” It would have been just as clear to respondent had he viewed the video prior to his appearance, but he did ultimately concede that he ran the red light. Respondent also did not recall other salient details captured on the videos from that day, such as that he asked the officer if he knew who he was taking to and refused to sign the ticket. While the Commission appreciated respondent willingness to admit he was wrong, it noted that he had not prepared to discuss the details of the instant matter.

Respondent acknowledged telling the officer that if he (respondent) was wrong about running the red light, he would apologize, but if the officer was wrong, respondent would ensure that the officer had no credibility in court. As observed by the Commission, respondent was asking the Commission for grace for his missteps but had not been willing to extend the same grace if the officer made a mistake.

Respondent eventually apologized to the officer when he ran into him at a training over ten months after the incident, but he did not reach out earlier because he “thought it was water under the bridge” after speaking to another major with the department. Respondent stated it did not make sense to him that the officer testified (prior to respondent’s apology) that he would not want to present a warrant in respondent’s courtroom out of fear of reprisal because he had never refused a properly presented warrant, although he conceded how his actions that day could lead the officer to believe there would be bias or repercussion. Even though respondent took an unnecessary dig at the officer during his sworn statement by gratuitously offering that the officer did not have a good reputation in response to the question of whether he had seen the officer since that day, he testified before the Commission that he has no issues with the officer today and that the officer is known as one of the best officers on the force.}

His statement to the police officer who stopped him for a clear violation of the law is emblematic of his attitude “[y]ou have no idea who you’re talking to” while threatening the officer’s career and livelihood. The Commission found his testimony lacked candor and evidenced an unwillingness to admit he was wrong or to apologize. Certainly, one has an absolute right to defend himself in a judicial complaint proceeding. However, the evidence in this matter demonstrates he had no defense. The behavior outlined in this record, unfortunately, demonstrates who the officer was talking to–a person with an attitude unbecoming of one who serves as a judge.

{With respect to Count I [an entirely separate matter from the red light incident], respondent brought the impartiality of the judiciary into question by the actions noted in the majority opinion, which essentially coerced attorneys for the city to attend a meeting wherein he stepped outside of the role of neutral judge and acted as a mediator. Although respondent may have acted with good intentions, his instant indignation upon hearing that the concert organizers were treated in a way he deemed unfair led him to act as an advocate, while exerting his judicial authority, to correct what he alone perceived as wrongs and broker a deal between the parties. Unfortunately, these actions evidence a complete disdain for proper procedure and give the impression that reaching out to a potentially sympathetic judge, even prior to the institution of formal proceedings, may help one side’s cause, which encourages forum shopping and perpetuates the unfortunate yet pervasive stereotype of uneven access to justice and fixed outcomes.

Worse still, the lack of formality and procedural safeguards ensured there was no record or means to appeal the misguided actions and ruling. Procedural rules are necessary, not only to avoid the appearance of impropriety or partiality on the part of the judge, or forum shopping on the part of the litigant, but also to promote efficient operation of the court system. Moreover, as observed by the majority, once there were media reports about the situation, the public-at-large’s perception of the judiciary was negatively affected and its respect for the judiciary was inevitably eroded.

With respect to Count II, respondent’s inability to keep calm or reflect upon his own potential culpability upon being pulled over led him to invoke his authority and threaten and intimidate a law enforcement officer who treated respondent with the utmost professionalism and respect. This led the officer to treat respondent differently based on the status he invoked, as well as to hesitate to bring warrants for respondent to sign out of fear of bias or retribution. Respondent’s actions that day clearly undermined the integrity of the judiciary.}

Ultimately, a judge is a public servant assigned the task of resolving issues in which people or entities find themselves embroiled. A judge serves society by resolving these issues respectfully with wisdom and patience, while applying the law as written by the legislature and not straying too far to the left or the right, metaphorically speaking. Serving as a judge is an immensely difficult profession but one that is absolutely essential to a properly functioning society. Although judges are not infallible, final resolution to disputes is indispensable to societal harmony and conflict resolution.

Belligerence, self-centeredness, and a complete disdain for due process (a fundamental legal concept that mandates notice and an opportunity to be heard in an unbiased forum) are all intolerable attributes for one who sits in judgment of others. Respondent’s actions (in these matters and in the hearings) seem to teeter on some of those attributes. While I agree that the Commission’s recommendation of a 30-day suspension was far too lenient, it is my belief the sanction imposed by the majority is too lenient also. I find respondent’s actions warrant a harsher sanction, and he should not serve as a judge until he can demonstrate he possesses the proper temperament and discernment to sit in judgment. I reluctantly concur in the result.