IN RE: CONFIDENTIAL PARTY (2026)

Granted in part. The portion of the hearing officer's order granting a stay of these proceedings and an extension of the answer deadline until August 31, 2026 is hereby reinstated, subject to the condition that no further stays or extensions of time shall be granted. In all other respects, the application is denied.

I would grant and docket this matter to expedite consideration of the jurisdictional issue posed in the dissent of Justice Guidry.

I dissent from the action taken in this matter by the majority, which violates this Court's own rules, is premature, and, in my opinion, is an unwarranted encroachment on the constitutional authority of the Judiciary Commission.

Under recent amendments to La. S. Ct. Rule XXIII, review is provided upon a completed investigation by the Judiciary Commission and does not extend to review of an interlocutory Commission ruling, such as the denial of a stay and extension of deadlines for a respondent to answer the Notice of Hearing. Rule XXIII exhaustively defines the matters reviewable by this Court in disciplinary proceedings, and a stay and extension of deadlines determination made in the ordinary course of Commission case administration is not among them. Furthermore, while La. Const. art. V, § 25 admittedly has been broadened such that this Court's original jurisdiction is no longer premised solely on receipt of a recommendation for discipline by the Commission but can now also be invoked to refer a matter to the Commission for investigation, the recently expanded constitutional article does not allow this Court to invoke its original jurisdiction to review procedural, non-disciplinary- recommendation-related decisions made by the Commission. Without original jurisdiction, we cannot exercise supervisory jurisdiction to affect the day-to-day operation of the Commission, which is not a lower court over which this Court has supervisory jurisdiction and which is a separate constitutionally created entity.

The public and the judges of our state deserve to be able to rely on consistent and predictable proceedings in which established rules and procedures are adhered to. Anything less undermines confidence in our judicial discipline process. Therefore, I respectfully dissent and would dismiss the application for review as prematurely filed.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM * FN* Hughes, J., recused.

Weimer, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons. Guidry, J., dissents and assigns reasons. Hughes, J., recused.