Opinion ID: 1774455
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Merits and Penalty

Text: Judge Decuir and special counsel to the Commission stipulated to the facts, including those in mitigation, surrounding the charges. Judge Decuir also admitted that the stipulated facts establish violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Thus, we are left only with the task of deciding the appropriate measure of discipline in this case. [4] Before the Commission, and before us, Judge Decuir argued that the appropriate discipline for these violations should be private censure, not the public censure recommended by the Commission. Article V, § 25(C) of the Louisiana Constitution sets forth four punishment alternatives for disciplining a judge. We may: (1) censure; (2) suspend the judge with or without salary; (3) remove the judge from office; or (4) retire the judge involuntarily. Although these four alternatives differ with respect to the severity of the punishment, they are similar in that each appears to contemplate public discipline. By their very nature, suspension from office, removal from office, and involuntary retirement are always public. Analogizing from the other three modes of discipline and from the rules applicable to lawyer discipline, we find that a censure in judicial disciplinary proceedings should also be public. Supreme Court Rule 19, § 10(A) sets forth the modes of punishment available in lawyer discipline proceedings. Under this provision, lawyers are subject to: (1) disbarment; (2) suspension; (3) probation; (4) reprimand; and (5) admonition. [5] Subsection (D) of Supreme Court Rule 19, § 10, states that the disposition of lawyer discipline shall be public in cases of disbarment, suspension, probation, and reprimand, while subsection (A) specifically defines admonition as a mode of private discipline that occurs before the filing of formal charges with the Disciplinary Board of the Louisiana State Bar Association. Unlike Supreme Court Rule 10, Article V, § 25(C) of the Louisiana Constitution does speak of admonishment of a judge in a disciplinary proceeding. The most lenient punishment that may be issued is censure, which by virtue of its definition, is synonymous with reprimand. Black's Law Dictionary 203 (5th ed. 1979) generally defines censure as a type of reprimand: The formal resolution of a legislative, administrative, or other body reprimanding a person, normally one of its own members, for specified conduct. An official reprimand or condemnation. (Emphasis added.) In similar manner, Black's Law Dictionary 1170 (5th ed. 1979) defines a reprimand as a type of censure: To reprove severely; to censure formally, especially with authority.... A public and formal censure or severe reproof, administered to a person in fault by his superior officer or by a body or organization to which he belongs. Thus, a member of a legislative body may be reprimanded by the presiding officer, in pursuance of a vote of censure, for improper conduct in the house; similarly, an attorney might be reprimanded by the Supreme Court or Bar Association of his State for unethical or improper conduct. (Emphasis added.) We find judicial censure under Article V, § 25(C) of the Louisiana Constitution akin to the reprimand of a lawyer, which is public. Once the Commission holds its hearing, determines that good cause exists for the disciplining of the judge, and makes its recommendation to this Court, the matter automatically becomes public. See Supreme Court Rule 23, Sections 12, 14 and 23. If we find, as we do in this case, that the violations are serious enough to merit the most lenient type of discipline by the Court, we censure the violator in a public opinion. Accordingly, it is ordered that Judge Oswald A. Decuir, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, be, and he hereby is, censured for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act. It is further ordered that Judge Oswald A. Decuir reimburse the Louisiana Judiciary Commission $3,964.25, [6] representing costs incurred during the investigation and prosecution of the case. Supreme Court Rule 23, Section 22.