Opinion ID: 1899541
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Count IThe Judiciary Commission Matter

Text: In March 2002, respondent submitted a complaint alleging judicial misconduct to the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XXIII, § 23, All documents filed with, and evidence and proceedings before the judiciary commission are confidential. Nevertheless, during a hearing in open court in April 2002 in connection with a motion to recuse the judge subject of the complaint, respondent referred to the complaint on the record, including its file number, and noted that the complaint was active. [8] The ODC was notified of the public disclosure of the complaint and thereafter sought a response from respondent. By letter dated February 10, 2003, respondent denied any misconduct. Specifically, respondent stated that neither the basis, nor any of the documents or evidence regarding the complaint . . . were disclosed and there was no advice [from] the Judiciary Commission that even the mere existence of the complaint was to be confidential. In its formal charges, the ODC alleged that respondent's conduct violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as Supreme Court Rule XXIII, § 23, relating to the confidentiality of Judiciary Commission proceedings. Respondent answered the formal charges and denied any misconduct.