Opinion ID: 1920622
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Legal Error Constitutes Judicial Misconduct

Text: Having found that legal error occurred, we must next determine whether the circumstances presented here are such that the legal error constitutes grounds for a finding of judicial misconduct. In re: Quirk [23] scrutinized this issue of first impression in Louisiana and cautioned: It is with great care that we address this issue, for subjecting a judge to discipline because of an erroneous legal ruling has the potential to trammel the exercise of judicial discretion and stifle the independence of the judiciary. Nevertheless, Quirk held that a judge may be found to have violated La. Const. Art. V, Sec. 25 by a legal ruling or action made contrary to clear and determined law about which there is no confusion or question as to its interpretation and where this legal error was egregious, made in bad faith, or made as part of a pattern or practice of legal error. [24] We hold that legal error committed by Judge Elloie in this judicial disciplinary matter rises to the level of judicial misconduct. La. R.S. 44:9 is clear and unambiguous. Prior to the granting of a motion to expunge a felony arrest or conviction record, a contradictory hearing must be held. Judge Elloie admitted his actions in granting such motions without notice or hearing were in violation of this clearly expressed law. Moreover, Judge Elloie admitted that he never held a contradictory hearing on expungement motions, which constitutes a pattern or practice of legal error. This court also takes particular note in this instance of the manner in which Judge Elloie violated this express law. Judge Elloie ruled on motions for cases not assigned to his section of court without obtaining the consent of the assigned judges, in violation of local court rules. [25] Judge Elloie did not rule on these motions in open court, where a record of his actions could be made and placed on the record. Instead, these motions were ruled upon off-the-record at a bench conference and in a hallway of the courthouse. The handling of judicial matters off-the-record gives at least the appearance of impropriety and lessens the public's confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Moreover, Judge Elloie ruled on these motions without checking the criminal records at issue or engaging in the proper legal analysis to determine whether these defendants were eligible for dismissal and expungement. Equally disturbing, Judge Elloie's testimony showed that he failed to comprehend the significance and effect of his own judicial actions. He blithely assumed that others, specifically the very law enforcement agencies which he was ordering to perform the expungement of records, would notice and correct any error he made in the determination of whether the criminal defendants were eligible for expungement of their records. He also maintained that another check upon his actions could be made by the District Attorney's office, by their filing a motion to set aside his initial expungement, as occurred in these cases. He failed to understand that it was his duty to make the determination of eligibility for dismissal or expungement. In Quirk, we acknowledge that legal error will generally not be grounds for judicial misconduct. Instead, legal error is normally the subject of appeal: Our three-tiered system of judicial review necessarily exists, in part, to reverse legal errors made below. In this manner, the vast majority of legal errors are more properly addressed on appeal and do not amount to judicial misconduct. [26] However, Judge Elloie's actions in failing to give notice, in failing to hold a contradictory hearing and in ruling on motions off-the-record prevent the very appellate review by which legal error may be corrected. In each instance under consideration here, Judge Elloie showed a disregard for the established procedural rules by which his decisions should have been made. Such an attitude cannot prevail, as [o]ur judicial system operates on `rules of law' of which judges and lawyers must abide. In re: Justice of the Peace Landry, XXXX-XXXX p. 11 (La.6/29/01), 789 So.2d 1271. 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 the efficient operation of the court system. [27] In arguing that any legal errors do not rise to the level of judicial misconduct, Judge Elloie presents several considerations in his defense. We will address each of these briefly.