RANDAZZO v. IMBRAGUGLIO (2021)

Writ application not considered. See Louisiana Supreme Court Rule VII § 7.

While I agree with the Court's decision that this writ shall not be considered, I write separately to note that the applicant's blatant violation of this Court's rule prohibiting discourteous language in a writ application is troublesome. Louisiana Supreme Court Rule VII, Section 7 provides:

Section 7. The language used in any brief or document filed in this court must be courteous, and free from insulting criticism of any person, individually or officially, or of any class or association of persons, or of any court of justice, or other institution. Any violation of this rule shall subject the author or authors of the brief or document to the humiliation of having the brief or document returned, and to punishment for contempt of the authority of the court.

Lawyers in this state take the following oath: “I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers.” Our Professional Guidelines similarly require integrity in an attorney's interactions with the court. La. Sup. Ct. R., Part G, § 11 (“We will speak and write civilly and respectfully in all communications with the court.”).

In his writ application to this Court, applicant sets forth overly harsh criticism of the lower courts, describing the “corrupt” trial court's ruling as a “massacre of justice” and the court of appeal's “feebl[y] written” decision as “feckless,” “perverse,” and “aberrant.” In my view, even in the spirit of zealous advocacy, the use of this language violates our oath as lawyers, our Professionalism Guidelines, and La. Sup. Ct. Rule VII, § 7.

Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons. Crain, J., additionally concurs for reasons assigned by Justice Crichton.