PETER ADAMS ET AL v. ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS INC ET AL (2024)

I agree with this Court's unanimous per curiam opinion to reverse the ruling of the court of appeal recusing the trial court judge in this case. I write separately to note my strong concern about the nature of the proceedings in connection with the motion to recuse. The hearing on the motion contained informal and irrelevant banter between the ad hoc judge and counsel, which, along with frivolous objections, rendered the transcript convoluted and painfully challenging to read.

Contained in the Louisiana Lawyer's Oath, sworn to by all licensed attorneys in this state, is a promise to “maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers” and a pledge of “fairness, integrity, and civility” to opposing parties and counsel. See La. Lawyer's Oath, available at https://www.lsba.org/Professionalism. The Louisiana State Bar Association Code of Professionalism additionally directs lawyers “to protect and improve the image of the legal profession in the eyes of the public.” La. State Bar Ass'n Code of Pro., available at https://www.lsba.org/Professionalism. The Code of Professionalism contained in this Court's administrative rules further requires lawyers to “not engage in any conduct that brings disorder or disruption to the courtroom.” La. Sup. Ct. R. Part G, § 11 (“Lawyers’ Duties to the Courts”) (emphasis added). In addition, judges are called on to “maintain control of the proceedings, recognizing that judges have both the obligation and authority to insure that all litigation proceedings are conducted in a civil manner.” La. Sup. Ct. R. Part G, § 11 (“Judges’ Duties to the Courts”). Louisiana District Court Rules also explain, “[a]ttorneys shall address all remarks, objections, and comments to the judge, never to opposing counsel. Impromptu argument or discussion between counsel will not be permitted.” Title I, Rule 6.2 (f), La. Dist. Ct. Rules, available at https://www.lasc.org/rules/dist.ct/Title_I.pdf.

These concepts are likewise codified at La. C.C.P. art. 371, which states, in pertinent part,

An attorney at law is an officer of the court. He shall conduct himself at all times with dignity and decorum, and in a manner consistent with the dignity and authority of the court and the role which he himself should play in the administration of justice. He shall treat the court, its officers, jurors, witnesses, opposing party, and opposing counsel with due respect; shall not interrupt opposing counsel, or otherwise interfere with or impede the orderly dispatch of judicial business by the court[.]

(emphasis added).

There were many instances during the recusal hearing when the lawyers and, at times, the ad hoc judge failed to comply with these rules. In particular, the lawyers repeatedly spoke over each other, requiring the court reporter to intervene four times. The reporter began by stating, “[a]nd, Counsel, just a reminder, one at a time.” Later, when asked to read a question back to the witness, the reporter responded, “I'll try. Y'all were speaking over each other.” Later she again reminded the lawyers for both parties, “Ladies, one at a time.” Eventually, the hearing became so unruly, the court reporter had to pause the proceeding herself to ensure she could do her job.¹ She said, “—hold on. Stop.” When the attorney continued to speak, the reporter said, “Hold on.” Again, counsel interrupted, and the reporter said, “Ms. Jacobs, stop. Take a breath. I need y'all to calm down. I'm sure this record is going to go somewhere, and I need a clear record. Okay. Please.” The judge himself was interrupted as he admonished the lawyers to “wait until the other one is finished speaking [interruption] before you speak.”

The proceedings were so disorderly, the court reporter took the extraordinary step of including a disclaimer at the end of the transcript explaining, “[t]hat due to the interaction in the spontaneous discourse of this proceeding, dashes (--) have been used to indicate pauses, changes in thought, and/or talkovers[.]” In my many years reading transcripts, I have rarely seen a “Reporter's Page” including this sort of disclaimer from a court reporter. In short, our ruling today reinstating the ad hoc judge's decision on the recusal motion should not be interpreted as an endorsement of such inappropriate conduct during the hearing.

FOOTNOTES

1.   La. C.C.P. art. 372(A) provides, “The court reporter of a trial court, when directed by the court, shall report verbatim ․ the testimony of all witnesses, the other evidence introduced or offered, the objections thereto, and the rulings of the court thereon, on the trial of any appealable civil case or matter.”

Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.