IN RE: JUDGE EBONI JOHNSON ROSE (2024)

Immediate interim disqualification granted. See Order.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 2024-O-0931

IN RE: JUDGE EBONI JOHNSON ROSE

ORDER

Upon recommendation of the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana acting pursuant to the authority granted under La. Const. art. V, § 25,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that respondent, Judge Eboni Johnson Rose, 19th Judicial District Court, State of Louisiana, be and hereby is immediately disqualified from exercising any judicial function during the pendency of further proceedings in this matter based on a finding of probable cause that respondent committed a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the public and the administration of justice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent's interim disqualification be pursuant to the express and mandatory provisions of La. Const. art. V, § 25(C).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XXIII, § 27(h), the subsequent disciplinary proceedings against respondent shall be expedited and shall be resolved by the Commission within six months, unless good cause is shown.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall be taxed with costs of these proceedings pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XXIII, § 27(i).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's recommendation, respondent's opposition and this order be public pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XXIII, § 27(d).

This order shall be effective immediately.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 6th day of August, 2024.

FOR THE COURT:

JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

Given respondent's apology and remorse, I would consider her attempt to improve her judicial performance through a period of probation under the guidance of an experienced and respected mentor. The balance between an appropriate sanction for behavior that deserves a sanction and respect for the choice of the electorate is a difficult one.

I agree with the majority that Respondent presents a substantial threat of serious harm to the public and I therefore concur in the decision to immediately disqualify Respondent from exercising any further judicial function, as recommended by the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana. In this judicial disciplinary proceeding, probable cause for the allegations of misconduct against Respondent was established by official transcripts prepared by a certified court reporter of the on-record proceedings. However, because our constitution and Supreme Court rules do not allow us to do otherwise, the taxpayers of this state are forced to bear the double burden of paying Respondent's salary during her suspension and the cost of a pro tempore judge to serve in her stead.

I concur because, were it in our power to do so, I would have made the suspension without pay and the expense of the pro tempore judge her responsibility. However, Louisiana Constitution, Article 5, V, § 25 (C) provides:

On recommendation of the judiciary commission, the supreme court may censure, suspend with or without salary, remove from office, or retire involuntarily a judge for willful misconduct relating to his official duty, willful and persistent failure to perform his duty, persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, conduct while in office which would constitute a felony, or conviction of a felony. On recommendation of the judiciary commission, the supreme court may disqualify a judge from exercising any judicial function, without loss of salary, during pendency of proceedings in the supreme court. On recommendation of the judiciary commission, the supreme court may retire involuntarily a judge for disability that seriously interferes with the performance of his duties and that is or is likely to become permanent. The supreme court shall make rules implementing this Section and providing for confidentiality and privilege of commission proceedings.

(Emphasis added). While Respondent's conduct as a member of the judiciary certainly warrants a suspension of her pay, there is no lawful means by which to impose this condition. The people of this state should amend the constitution to allow us that option. Furthermore, this Court should amend its rules to require the suspended judge to bear the expense of any pro tempore judge who is required to preside in the suspended judge's stead.

I respectfully dissent noting that interim disqualification of a sitting judge is a harsh remedy that must be exercised sparingly as it runs counter to the decision of voters. See In re Hunter, 02-1975, pp. 12-13 (La. 8/19/02), 823 So.2d 325, 333-34; La. Const. art. V, § 22(A). This is axiomatic given the high bar articulated for a final decision of removal, namely “willful misconduct relating to [a judge's] official duty, willful and persistent failure to perform his duty, persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, conduct while in office which would constitute a felony, or conviction of a felony.” La. Const. art. V, § 25(C).

The actions of the judge in this matter are cause for concern and may ultimately lead to discipline. However, in my view, they are not so egregious as to warrant the most extreme measures at this point in the Judiciary Commission process.

Hughes, J., dissents and assigns reasons. Crain, J., concurs for the reasons assigned by Justice McCallum. McCallum, J., concurs and assigns reasons. Griffin, J., dissents and assigns reasons.