IN RE: JUDICIARY COMMISSION FILE NO. 0383 (2021)

Denied - See per curiam.

Denied. This court's exclusive original jurisdiction under La. Const. art. V, § 25 is invoked only upon a recommendation of discipline by the Judiciary Commission. In re: Quirk, 97-1143 (La. 12/12/97), 705 So. 2d 172. No recommendation of discipline has been filed in this case.

Implicit in the majority's ruling in this matter is that respondent is entitled to no relief under the circumstances presented to the Court at this time, a decision with which I agree. The information respondent seeks to elicit is immaterial, irrelevant, and in any event, the probative value is outweighed by a waste of administrative time and resources.¹

However, in my view, this Court also has supervisory and plenary authority, and most importantly to the instant matter, constitutional original jurisdiction in all disciplinary matters related to the bench and bar. See La. Const. Art. V, § 5. See also, Albert Tate, Jr., Supervisory Powers of the La. Courts of Appeal, 38 Tul. L. Rev. 429, 430 (1964) (“This constitutional grant of supervisory authority has always been held to be plenary, unfettered by jurisdictional requirements, and exercisable at the complete discretion of the court.”). With that authority, particularly as the court of last resort, comes the responsibility to safeguard the due process rights of any defendant, as well as a respondent judge or lawyer. Thus, I disagree with the majority that this Court lacks the power or jurisdiction to examine the pre-hearing ruling of the hearing officer. Much like a criminal defendant maintains the right to make out a defense, a respondent judge or lawyer should be afforded the same due process rights. Again, while I agree that the merits of this respondent's application should be denied, I decline to adopt any intimation by the Court that we are without the authority to act otherwise. Finally, although I ultimately agree the hearing officer correctly ruled in this matter, respondent may still make an offer of proof for the record.²

FOOTNOTES

1.   Section (D)(1) of Rule VIII of the Rules of the Judiciary Commission of the State of Louisiana provides in pertinent part: “The Commission and hearing officers shall not be bound by the technical rules of evidence and may admit material and relevant evidence ․” Furthermore, Section (D)(2) of the same rule provides that “[t]he principles underlying the Louisiana Code of Evidence shall serve as a guide to the admissibility of evidence in hearings before the Commission.”

2.   Concerning rulings against admissibility of evidence, the Rule VIII of the Rules of the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana provide in pertinent part:***E. (1) When the Commission rules against the admissibility of any testimonial evidence, it shall permit the party offering the evidence to submit the evidence by deposition taken pursuant to the provisions of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. The Commission may, in its discretion, allow a party to make a sworn proffer of testimony during a break in the formal proceedings (such as lunch or the end of the day), when the Commission and its counsel are not present. The party requesting the proffer of testimony during such break shall pay all costs (including court reporter and hearing room costs) associated with the proffer. When the Commission rules against the admissibility of any documentary evidence, it shall permit the party offering the evidence to proffer it into the record. Proffers of testimonial evidence shall be submitted within thirty (30) calendar days subsequent to the completion of the hearing, and proffers of documentary evidence shall be submitted by the completion of the hearing.***

Hughes, J., concurs in part and dissents in part for reasons assigned by Justice Crichton. Crichton, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns reasons. McCallum, J., recused.