Opinion ID: 1800645
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Inappropriate comments to the media about pending cases)

Text: On July 7, 2003, Judge Miller filed a Petition to Establish Filiation of Ms. Viator's son. W.R.M. v. H.C.V. and M.J.V ., No. 03-3614 on the docket of the 14th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Calcasieu. [4] On November 5, 2003, Michael Viator filed suit against Judge Miller, seeking damages as well as the annulment of the 1997 divorce judgment. [5] Michael Joseph Viator v. Wendell R. Miller, No. C-790-03 on the docket of the 31st Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson Davis. Sometime after the filing of Mr. Viator's suit, Judge Miller gave an interview to a reporter for The Legal News of Southwest Louisiana. The interview formed the basis of a newspaper article titled All I Want for Christmas . . . in which Judge Miller discussed his long-term sexual relationship with Ms. Viator and the fact that he believes A.V. is his son. The article also refers to the fact that Judge Miller gave Ms. Viator monthly support for her son; to the fact that Judge Miller filed suit to establish the boy's paternity; and to the fact that Ms. Viator filed suit against Judge Miller for sexual harassment and discrimination. Both Ms. Viator's federal suit and Judge Miller's paternity suit were ongoing at that time. Judge Miller also issued at least two press releases to several newspapers to give his side of the story. [6] The Commission alleged that Judge Miller's conduct violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B (a judge shall not allow family, social, political, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment, nor shall a judge lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interest of the judge or others), and 3A(8) (a judge shall not, while a proceeding is pending in any Louisiana state court, make any public comment that might reasonably be expected to affect its outcome or impair its fairness) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Commission further alleged that Judge Miller engaged in willful misconduct relating to his official duty and persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, in violation of La. Const. art. V, § 25(C).