 |
| Advocate staff photo by MATTHEW HINTON--Mary Whitney, special counsel for the judiciary commission, the agency that investigates judicial misconduct, speaks to the Louisiana Supreme Court about Judge James Best, of the 18th Judicial District Court, during a disciplinary hearing before the Louisiana Supreme Court in New Orleans, La. Tuesday, May 3, 2016. speaks to the seven justices including Associate Justice Jefferson D. Hughes III, second left, Associate Justice Greg G. Guidry, Associate Justice Jeannette Theriot Knoll, Chief Justice Justice Bernette J. Johnson, left, Associate Justice John L. Weimer, Associate Justice Marcus R. Clark, and Associate Justice Scott J. Crichton. |
As St. John the Baptist Parish Judge Jeff Perilloux sat suspended from the bench, awaiting trial on sex charges involving minors, the state paid him more than $300,000 in salary, while also plunking down a $406.77 daily rate for fill-in judges to do his job for more than two years.
A jury finally convicted him last year on four sex charges that involved fondling his daughter’s teenage friends. He resigned his post shortly before he was sentenced to 14 years in prison.
The Louisiana Supreme Court did not get the chance to formally kick Perilloux off the bench, nor did it have a way to recoup the cost of his misdeeds. The investigative arm for judicial misconduct, the Louisiana Judiciary Commission, lost jurisdiction as soon as Perilloux resigned after two years under investigation.
But judges who choose a similar route in the future might find themselves punished differently: if the high court can’t kick them off the bench, it can now dent their bank accounts.
The court has changed its rules to allow for monetary penalties for suspended judges who cling to their posts and then quit before the court can slap them with discipline.
The new rules say if the court has disqualified a judge on an interim basis after an indictment or a criminal charge, the judge — if unwilling to resign — will be responsible to repay the state for the $407-per-day cost of the judge appointed to take over their docket.
Those rules apply if the judge is convicted of the crime, “absent exceptional circumstances” that the Judiciary Commission and State Supreme Court will consider.
If judges retire or resign after a misconduct case against them has become public but before a final ruling, the Judiciary Commission under the new rules can also attempt to recover all of its investigative costs. Judiciary Commission investigations generally cost between $2,000 to $3,000, though they vary depending on the complexity of a case, number of witnesses and more, said Supreme Court spokesman Robert Gunn.
The new rule on paying back costs, however, does not apply if judges simply cycle off the bench when their terms end.
That’s how now-retired Orleans Magistrate Judge Harry Cantrell stepped out of a judicial misconduct case last year unscathed, despite allegations that he committed “willful misconduct” and “persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.”
Though the Judiciary Commission scheduled a hearing against him, Cantrell was never suspended, and he ran out the clock on the case. He was too old to run again and left office at the end of his term.
State Supreme Court Chief Justice John Weimer said in a statement that the new rules will make the high court more efficient and hold state judges more accountable for their actions.
“These changes ensure that judges who are convicted of crimes or who resign or retire in the late stages of judicial discipline proceedings, sometimes to avoid the imposition of public discipline by this Court, may be held accountable for the costs incurred as a result of their actions and that such costs are not ultimately borne by the taxpayers of this State,” it read.
The rule changes also include provisions to speed up cases involving criminal conduct, impairment and disabilities, or cases where judges have been disqualified while under investigation.
Dane Ciolino, a Loyola Law School professor and an authority on legal ethics, said the purpose of the new rules is clear.
“The Supreme Court is obviously kind of tired of having judges engage in criminal conduct and have the taxpayers wind up paying for their replacements and other expenses while the matter is worked out in the Judiciary Commission,” he said.
“Due process takes a long time. I think the message the court is sending to judges is, ‘If you’ve done something wrong and you know it, resign. Or else you’re going to have to pay.’”
Ciolino said the new rules should make it easy for the court to collect from judges who step down to avoid inevitable discipline and a public shaming.
“They’ll do it the same way they collect money from disbarred lawyers,” he said. “They’ll send it to a collection agency.”
The court has a long history of putting judges accused of misconduct or criminal activity on paid leave.
Among them: Shreveport City Court Judge Lee Irvin, suspended from the bench in January 2020 amid an investigation over whether he gave preferential treatment to a romantic partner whose case before him. Irvin retired from the bench while under investigation in July 2020.
New Orleans Juvenile Court Judge Yvonne Hughes pleaded for more time to defend herself while under paid suspension before the Supreme Court removed her in 2004 and fined her more than $20,000. Hughes allegedly stiffed past law clients once she won election, improperly ordered the release of 1,100 people over two years with the help of a felon in her court and failed to show up or render judgments, the court found.
Other judges facing serious allegations have stepped aside before the moment of truth, ending the commission’s purview.
Byron C. Williams, a criminal court judge in Orleans Parish, resigned last year after 18 months of paid suspension, at an annual salary of $152,000 annual. Williams appears to have averted formal punishment or costs over allegations that he groped the breast of a female court clerk and made inappropriate comments about the appearance of female attorneys from the bench.
The state paid a series of retired judges to cover Williams’ docket.
The rule changes, which the Supreme Court made official on Nov. 19, are the latest in a series of reforms to the judicial discipline process, which in Louisiana has long been shrouded in secrecy. The changes came after a 2019 series of stories by The Advocate | The Times-Picayune revealed a long-buried judicial misconduct case and federal investigation into state Supreme Court Justice Jeff Hughes.
The state Supreme Court changed its rules last year to allow for more public access to judicial discipline cases, including opening its files and hearings to the public once a judge receives a formal misconduct charge.
Judges may still receive secret counseling letters from the Commission called reminders, cautions or admonishments that are not subject to public access.
Jeff Hughes’ fellow Supreme Court justices publicly censured him this summer over a separate case where he was accused of offering $5,000 to a Hammond political operative to switch his allegiance in a race for an open Supreme Court seat.
The court billed Hughes, who remains on the Supreme Court bench, a little over $2,000 for the cost of the investigation.
