In Re Joyce Nanine McCOOL
172 So. 3d 1058
La.2015Background
- Joyce Nanine McCool (La. bar #27026) assisted a friend in child-custody/adoption disputes pending in Mississippi and Louisiana and drafted/promoted an online petition and social‑media campaign criticizing the presiding judges and urging the public to contact them.
- The petition and posts included the children’s photos, links to audio recordings, and directives to call judges and the Louisiana Supreme Court while related proceedings were pending and partially sealed.
- Judges Gambrell (Miss.) and Amacker (La.) received emails, calls, and a faxed copy of the petition; both testified they felt threatened and later recused in related matters.
- The Office of Disciplinary Counsel charged McCool with violations of La. Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 3.5(a)/(b) (improper judge influence/ex parte contact) and 8.4(a), (c), (d) (assisting rule violations, dishonesty/misrepresentation, conduct prejudicial to administration of justice).
- Hearing committee and disciplinary board found McCool knowingly used social media to disseminate false/misleading content, to solicit ex parte communications through others, and to intimidate/influence judges; recommended 1 year + 1 day suspension.
- Louisiana Supreme Court independently reviewed the record, found clear and convincing evidence of violations and, emphasizing the severity, disbarred McCool.
Issues
| Issue | ODC / State Argument | McCool's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McCool solicited or induced improper ex parte communications with judges (Rule 3.5(a),(b)) | McCool used petitions, contact info, and social media to encourage the public to call judges and this Court to influence pending proceedings. | McCool argued she only encouraged public criticism to "remind" judges to apply law and that signers formed their own opinions; no direct contact by her. | Held: Violations proved. Soliciting the public to contact judges amounted to inducing prohibited ex parte communications; Rule 3.5(a),(b) violated. |
| Whether McCool knowingly disseminated false or misleading statements about judges and proceedings (Rule 8.4(c)) | Many postings misstated that judges "refused" to hear evidence, mischaracterized recusal orders as admissions of extreme bias, and asserted recordings had been excluded when they were never offered. | McCool claimed some factual errors were unintentional, were client perceptions, and/or constituted protected expression. | Held: Violations proved. Court found repeated false/misleading statements knowingly disseminated; Rule 8.4(c) violated. |
| Whether McCool's campaign was prejudicial to the administration of justice (Rule 8.4(d)) | The online campaign threatened judicial independence, caused judges safety concerns, led to recusals and delays, and exposed sealed child‑welfare material. | McCool invoked the First Amendment and urged that public criticism of judges is protected; argued advocacy driven by concern for children. | Held: Violation proved. Speech by an attorney in pending litigation is regulable; conduct prejudiced administration of justice and violated Rule 8.4(d). |
| Appropriate sanction and First Amendment defense | ODC and disciplinary board recommended suspension (1 year + 1 day); argued baseline ranges from suspension to disbarment given intent, falsehoods, and harm. | McCool contended much speech was protected and suspension—if any—should be less severe; some concurring justices argued suspension sufficient. | Held: Disbarment imposed. Majority concluded misconduct (novel use of social media, deliberate falsehoods, inducing ex parte contacts, exposure of children) and McCool’s lack of remorse warranted disbarment; several justices concurred only in misconduct but dissented as to disbarment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991) (lawyers’ extrajudicial speech is regulable to prevent substantial likelihood of material prejudice; attorneys held to higher standard than ordinary citizens)
- In re Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622 (1959) (attorneys may be disciplined for attacks on fairness/impartiality of judges; ethical limits on lawyer speech in pending matters)
- Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966) (prejudicial publicity can disrupt judicial process; courts must guard against outside interference)
- In re White, 996 So.2d 266 (La. 2008) (disbarment appropriate for certain ex parte communications and conduct intended to influence judge in pending domestic litigation)
- In re Lee, 977 So.2d 852 (La. 2008) (Rule 3.5(b) broadly prohibits ex parte communications; sanctions for disrespectful or improper communications with the court)
- Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Harrington, 585 So.2d 514 (La. 1990) (attorney not required to represent a party to be subject to ex parte prohibitions; suspension for false statements and improper ex parte contacts)