In Re Christine M. MIRE
197 So. 3d 656
La.2016Background
- Christine M. Mire, admitted 2004, faced ODC charges for (1) public accusations against judges and related litigation tactics in family-law matters involving Judge Phyllis Keaty (the "Keaty/McNabb/Hunter" matters) and (2) failure to timely disgorge fees and obey bankruptcy court orders in a client bankruptcy (the "Weinstein/Guillory" matter).
- In the Keaty-related disputes Mire sought recusal of Judge Keaty, obtained court-reporter media, asserted the official transcript had been altered, and filed a writ in the Louisiana Supreme Court asserting "incompetence and/or corruption" of judges; she also circulated that writ by e-mail.
- Factual development: copies of audio showed mixed file formats and evidence of splicing; a third judge later ordered Judge Keaty recused from one Hunter proceeding for "community interest," and Judge Keaty amended a financial disclosure; the record did not show any appellate judges altered opinions to influence an election.
- In the Weinsten matter Mire accepted $6,839.50 from a client in active Chapter 13 without bankruptcy approval, was ordered to disgorge, failed to comply, was held in contempt, incurred escalating sanctions, and ultimately paid approximately $35,639.50 about two years later.
- The hearing committee and Disciplinary Board found violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct (including Rules 1.15(d), 3.1, 3.2, 3.4(c), 3.5(d), 8.2(a), and 8.4(d)), and recommended suspension; the Board recommended one year and one day suspension with six months deferred and probation/ethics training.
- The Supreme Court adopted the Board’s recommendation: suspension for one year and one day (all but six months deferred), two years unsupervised probation conditioned on attending Ethics School, and assessment of costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mire’s public accusations that judges were "incompetent and/or corrupt" violated Rule 8.2(a) | ODC: Statements were false or made with reckless disregard and therefore sanctionable under Rule 8.2(a) | Mire: Statements are protected speech under the First Amendment; she had objective basis (altered recordings, disclosure issues) | Court: Violations of Rule 8.2(a); objective record did not support charge of corruption and appellate-panel-coverup; statements made knowingly or with reckless disregard |
| Whether Mire’s litigation tactics (repeated recusal motions, appeals) violated Rules 3.1, 3.2, 3.5(d) | ODC: Tactics were frivolous, disruptive, and intended to delay/prolong proceedings | Mire: Actions were reasonable challenges based on audio anomalies and disclosure concerns | Court: Violations found—filing unfounded motions and disruptive conduct violated the rules |
| Whether Mire violated duties by failing to timely disgorge client funds and disobeying bankruptcy orders | ODC: Mire failed to timely remit funds and disobeyed court orders, violating Rules 1.15(d), 3.4(c), 8.4(d) | Mire: Initially credibly claimed she had not received signed orders; attempted appeals (some untimely) | Court: Violations proven; delays were inexcusable after learning appeal deadlines had passed; sanctions warranted |
| Appropriate sanction for combined misconduct | ODC: Suspension of one year and one day (no deferral) or greater given harm and patterns | Mire: Less or no further discipline (esp. as to Keaty matters) because of evidence supporting her concerns and mitigating factors in bankruptcy matter | Held: Adopted Board sanction — suspension one year and one day, six months deferred; two years probation; Ethics School; costs assessed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re: Simon, 913 So.2d 816 (La. 2005) (discipline for knowingly false statements about judges; used as comparable sanction authority)
- In re: Octave, 45 So.3d 160 (La. 2010) (significant suspension for failure to comply with bankruptcy orders and related misconduct)
- Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Karst, 428 So.2d 406 (La. 1983) (adopts objective-reasonableness standard for false judicial-criticism rule)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (constitutional standard for punishing false statements about public officials informs disciplinary limits)
- Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1964) (limits on punishing public-official criticism; cited in discussion of Rule 8.2(a))
- In re: McCool, 172 So.3d 1058 (La. 2015) (contrast case where attorney lacked reasonable basis for judicial criticisms)