Opinion ID: 1843960
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to disclose attorney-client relationship

Text: First, the Commission found that Sue Fontenot simultaneously represented Judge Cooks in her divorce proceeding, which representation continued through February 1, 1994, and Jane Abshire in the matter of Abshire v. Lafayette Parish School Board , No. 930093(G) (15th Judicial District Court, May 6, 1993), rev'd, 619 So.2d 103 (La.App. 3rd Cir., May 28, 1993), rev'd and remanded, 624 So.2d 1210 (La.1993) (the Abshire case), while the matter was pending before the Third Circuit. The Commission found that Judge Cooks had a separate, distinct and individual duty to disclose `at the time of hearing of any contested issue in the case, (that [s]he) has continued to employ, to represent (her) personally, the attorney actually handling the cause (not just a member of that attorney's firm).' Merritt v. Karcioglu, No. 95-1335, pp. 9-12 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1/19/96), 668 So.2d 469 (writ granted 4/25/96). This duty to disclose arises out of La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 151 B which provides in pertinent part: B. A judge of any court, trial or appellate, may be recused when he: (2) At the time of the hearing of any contested issue in the cause, has continued to employ, to represent him personally, the attorney actually handling the cause (not just a member of that attorney's firm), and in this case the employment shall be disclosed to each party in the cause; While the Commission noted that its duty was not to enforce violations of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Commission found that a judge's willful violation of the spirit and letter of a procedural article on recusal constitutes violations of Canons 2 and 3A(1) [8] of the Code of Judicial Conduct. By failing to disclose her employment of Sue Fontenot to the parties in the Abshire case, the Commission found that Judge Cooks violated Canons 1 [9] , 2 [10] and 3B(2) [11] of the Code of Judicial Conduct because she had the obligation to disclose all facts that might be grounds for disqualification. Article 151 B(2) mandates that if a judge has continued to employ to represent him personally an attorney who is also representing a party in a matter pending before that judge, the judge must disclose this representation to all the parties in the matter pending before him. This mandatory obligation exists so that all parties will have the information necessary to determine if they should request that the judge be recused. Clearly, failure to make this disclosure when an attorney-client relationship exists could subject a judge to discipline. However, Judge Cooks disputes that Sue Fontenot continued to represent her after April 21, 1993 when the Judgment of Divorce was rendered and a Community Property Settlement was signed. The Abshire writ application was filed in the Third Circuit on May 6, 1993 and Judge Cooks' opinion was rendered on May 28, 1993. The Stipulation and testimony of Fontenot establish that Fontenot did no other work on Judge Cooks' divorce case after April 21, 1993 until approximately January of 1994, when she had discussions with Judge Cooks' ex-husband about the amount of his child support payments. In February of 1994, Fontenot prepared a Stipulation and proposed Judgment on behalf of Judge Cooks which was signed by the parties regarding child support. Judge Cooks maintains that the child support payment issue was a new representation by Fontenot, not a continuation of the representation in the divorce proceeding. We find that Fontenot's representation of Judge Cooks continued while the Abshire writ application was pending. The case was not completed as the Judgment of Divorce left the issue of child support to be resolved at a later date and Fontenot had not withdrawn as Judge Cooks' attorney of record. While clearly the ethical course of conduct for Judge Cooks would have been to disclose the fact that Fontenot was representing Judge Cooks in her divorce proceeding, we find that this violation of the Canons would not alone subject Judge Cooks to discipline under the facts and circumstances of this case.