In Re: C. Mignonne Griffing
236 So. 3d 1213
| La. | 2017Background
- C. Mignonne Griffing, an Assistant U.S. Attorney since 1990, had an undisclosed intimate relationship with an FBI special agent who frequently investigated and testified in cases she prosecuted.
- Griffing prosecuted two Monroe councilmen and Ouachita Parish Sheriff Royce Toney; she did not disclose the relationship to supervisors or defendants, though she later admitted it could affect witness credibility.
- In the Toney matter Griffing told defense counsel assurances that Toney would not be indicted in February, then (after supervisors directed presentation to the grand jury) did not inform counsel; she also called counsel and threatened Toney’s arrest and “perp-walk” if rumors continued.
- When questioned by the U.S. Attorney about the relationship, Griffing initially was not fully forthcoming; she later disclosed the relationship.
- The ODC charged violations of Rules 1.7, 3.8(d), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). Parties stipulated to facts and rule violations and proposed a one-year-and-one-day suspension with most deferred; the hearing committee, disciplinary board, and Supreme Court considered sanctions and evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ODC) | Defendant's Argument (Griffing) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to disclose intimate relationship/conflict with lead FBI agent (Rule 1.7) | Relationship created a conflict or potential conflict that should have been disclosed to supervisors and defendants. | Relationship did not create a disabling conflict; agent’s testimony was truthful and unaffected. | Violation proved; disclosure required and omission breached duties to client and defendants. |
| Failure to disclose exculpatory or mitigating information (Rule 3.8(d)) | Non-disclosure of the relationship affected disclosure obligations and could mitigate or impeach prosecution evidence. | Denied that non-disclosure warranted a Rule 3.8(d) violation or that it harmed cases. | Griffing stipulated and court found violation of Rule 3.8(d). |
| Abuse of prosecutorial power / threats to defense counsel re: arrest (Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(d)) | Griffing used office to threaten Toney’s arrest and to leverage personal interest, prejudicing administration of justice. | Asserted she was protecting witnesses and that arrest method was FBI’s decision; denied making specific threats. | Court found threats and assurances improper, prejudicial to justice, and violative of professional rules. |
| Dishonesty/misrepresentation to supervisors (Rule 8.4(c)) | Griffing misled the U.S. Attorney when first questioned about the relationship. | Initially not fully forthcoming but later disclosed; dispute over immediacy and materiality. | Court found deceitful conduct and violation of Rule 8.4(c). |
| Whether stipulation as to sanction is binding | ODC urged enforcement of stipulated discipline (1 year+1 day with six months active). | Griffing joined stipulation but argued committee applied incorrect standards at hearing. | Court held stipulations on sanctions in formal-charge proceedings are not binding on committee, board, or court. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re: Jordan, 913 So.2d 775 (La. 2005) (prosecutor failed to disclose exculpatory evidence; court imposed fully deferred suspension)
- In re: Ruffin, 54 So.3d 645 (La. 2011) (prosecutor used office to threaten—resulted in suspension with most deferred)
- In re: Ryland, 985 So.2d 71 (La. 2008) (romantic relationship with client during representation; discipline considered relative harm)
- In re: Bullock, 187 So.3d 986 (La. 2016) (deception and failure to disclose malpractice; one year and one day suspension, mostly deferred)
- In re: Caillouet, 800 So.2d 367 (La. 2001) (conflicts in prosecutor/DA contexts and discipline mitigation)
- In re: Toups, 773 So.2d 709 (La. 2000) (prosecutors held to high ethical standard due to public trust)
- Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Reis, 513 So.2d 1173 (La. 1987) (purposes of disciplinary proceedings and factors for sanctioning)