IN RE: JUDGE GUY E. BRADBERRY (2023)

I write separately to make clear the fundamental principle that this Court has supervisory and plenary authority over all other courts and original jurisdiction in all disciplinary matters related to the bench and bar. La. Const. art. V, § 5. “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.” Albert Tate, Jr., Supervisory Powers of the La. Courts of Appeal, 38 Tul. L. Rev. 429, 430 (1964). While the Court uses past cases as guidance for the imposition of discipline, those cases are not to be understood rigidly as binding precedent. Rather, in the context of judicial discipline, this Court has the power to make original determinations of fact based upon the evidence in the record. See In re Quirk, 97-1143, p. 4 (La. 12/12/97), 705 So.2d 172, 176; In re Bowman, 2012-2410 (La. 3/19/13), 111 So. 3d 317, 324 (“While our precedents provide general guidance in this area, the appropriate sanction must be determined with reference to the unique facts and circumstances of the specific case at issue.”). In my view, the unique facts and circumstances of this case merit the result reached by the majority in this case.

Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.