Opinion ID: 1737782
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: formal charge i(a)

Text: The Commission charged that from January 1, 1994 through May 9, 1996, Judge Emanuel maintained a policy and practice of intentionally refusing to set status conferences or issue scheduling orders establishing discovery cut-off and trial dates. Because of persistent complaints from the bench and bar regarding this practice, the court amended its Local Rule 9, effective May 9, 1996, which mandates that upon request, a judge shall either set a status conference or issue a scheduling order. [3] The parties stipulated to the following facts. Judge Emanuel maintained a policy of not setting status conferences or issuing scheduling orders upon request. Instead, Judge Emanuel often instructed the attorneys to complete a status report in order to determine if setting a trial date or other deadlines was appropriate. If he believed a case had not progressed to the extent that deadlines or a trial date were appropriate, he would refuse to furnish such dates. If he believed the case was ready for a trial date, he generally gave each of the attorneys available trial dates by telephone. The record also shows that Judge Emanuel, compared with the other judges assigned to the civil bench of the First Judicial District Court, had the lowest number of cases assigned to his civil section, conducted court the least amount of days, and conducted the fewest number of jury trials. The Stipulation also contained a summary of the sworn statements of four of the judges of the First Judicial District Court regarding Judge Emanuel's policy. Judge Frank Thaxton testified he received complaints from lawyers that Judge Emanuel would not respond to their requests for status conferences, and he met with Judge Emanuel on two occasions to discuss this problem, but that Judge Emanuel was not receptive to his suggestions. He further testified that at a meeting in the fall of 1995 of the Liason Committee between the Bench and Bar, the discussion centered around complaints about Judge Emanuel's policy of not conducting status conferences or setting trial dates. Minutes of the meeting were sent to Judge Emanuel, and when he did not respond, the judges felt it necessary to amend Rule 9. Judge Thaxton also testified that although the judges had planned to transfer cases to Judge Emanuel's section to balance the distribution of cases, he did not do this because of the complaints from attorneys that Judge Emanuel would not schedule trials or hold status conferences. Judge Crichton, who filed the initial complaint with the Commission, testified that at one judges' meeting in mid-1995, he told Judge Emanuel directly, You have got to set cases for trial. You have got to set status conferences or scheduling conferences; people are begging to get into your courtroom. Judge Crichton also testified that he stopped transferring cases to Judge Emanuel's section because of the lawyers' complaints. Judge Charles Scott testified that he did not remember any specific complaints against Judge Emanuel but did remember judges' meetings where Judge Emanuel was confronted about his failure to schedule conferences or set trial dates and that Rule 9 was probably amended because of Judge Emanuel's practice. Chief Judge Eugene Bryson testified that after he became aware of these problems in Judge Emanuel's section, he met with Judge Emanuel to discuss this and also requested that retired Judge C.J. Bolin likewise meet with Judge Emanuel. Judge Emanuel claims that there was only one meeting with certain judges on May 14, 1995, where his application of Rule 9 was discussed. He also acknowledges that he met with Judge Bolin, but not until September of 1996, after the complaint was filed. He further denied that Rule 9 was amended to correct his practice but insisted that Rule 9 was amended as part of a long-term revision of the Rules due to [his] urging and participation. The Commission made the following factual findings relative to Charge I: Judge Emanuel's (a) refusal to convene status conferences or to issue scheduling orders prior to May 31, 1996, and (b) refusal to sign many ex parte routine orders resulted in the following: a. the court as a whole eliminating use of a duty judge for routine matters; b. the court calling for assistance from the local Bench and Bar organization, which formed a 15-20 person committee, to address the problem of pre-trial case management, including amending then-existing local rules; c. the court completely eliminating one section of court that had been handling civil cases and reclassifying it as a criminal section so that Judge Emanuel could take a criminal docket; d. making a change in the local court rule regarding pre-trial matters to make mandatory that a judge either conduct status conferences upon request or issue scheduling orders; and e. before Judge Emanuel moved to criminal docket, Judges Crichton, Scott, and Thaxton assuming larger dockets rather than referring matters to Section F (Judge Emanuel's section); the referral of every fourth matter to Section F had been agreed upon as a way to beef up Judge Emanuel's section of court. The Commission concluded that Charge I(A) was proven by clear and convincing evidence, stating that of paramount concern to the Commission is the effect upon the public and public perception regarding Judge Emanuel's case management. The public's interest in having judicial matters resolved promptly should not suffer. If Judge Emanuel was unwilling to accept assistance from his judicial colleagues, he had an obligation to effectively resolve the problems that were apparent to many people in Caddo Parish in order to supervise cases assigned to him and to move them through the system in an expeditious manner. Further, the Commission found that he failed to discharge his duty to move cases assigned to his section promptly or efficiently, all in violation of Canon 3 A(7) of the Code of Judicial Conduct (1976) and 1974 Const. art. V, § 25(C).