IN RE: JUDGE VERCELL FIFFIE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH STATE OF LOUISIANA (2024)

I agree with the decision to deny rehearing. In the original opinion, a majority of justices found Judge Fiffie's conduct caused substantial harm and remarked upon his “persistent refusal to acknowledge his errors, to take unqualified responsibility for them, and to listen to the advice and counsel of others.” In re: Fiffie, 24-0976, p.18 (La. 10/25/24), --- So. 3d ---. Despite this clear repudiation of his conduct, in his rehearing application submitted on his own behalf, Judge Fiffie continues to obstinately refuse to take responsibility for the underlying conduct that brought him before the Commission in the first place, acknowledging in broad and vague language only that he acted with “admittedly excessive deliberation and care” and did not “bend[ ] to the will of colleagues.” Throughout his application, he continues to offer excuses and purported justifications for his actions, claiming that he is a person who is “not easily read” and implying that the Judiciary Commission's finding was some misunderstanding. He also appears to place blame for the result of the case on the attorney who ably represented him at the argument before the Supreme Court. In short, Judge Fiffie's continued finger-pointing on rehearing, and his related inability to take ownership of the various violations this Court has now determined warrant the imposition of discipline, confirms my view that the original sanction was warranted.

CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.