158 So. 3d 771
La.2014Background
- Judge J. Robin Free (18th JDC) was the subject of Formal Charge 0314 alleging two counts of judicial misconduct arising from (1) post-December 1, 2009 conduct in the Thomas environmental class action and (2) acceptance of an all‑expenses‑paid Texas hunting trip in April 2010 after presiding over Robles v. Integrated Production Services.
- In Thomas, an August 29, 2007 class certification judgment omitted earlier plume maps; by that judgment’s plain terms Judge Free’s mother owned property within the class area. On December 1, 2009 Dow counsel warned Judge Free of a recusal issue. Judge Free telephoned defense counsel’s firm (including an ex parte call to Charles Marionneaux) and did not immediately schedule the requested status conference; Dow later filed a motion to recuse and another judge granted recusal.
- In Robles, the case settled mid‑trial; shortly thereafter Judge Free accepted an invitation from lawyers in the case (including local counsel who regularly appears before him) to a multi‑day trip to Texas where he flew on a law‑firm private jet and stayed at ranch properties free of charge.
- The Judiciary Commission found violations of multiple Canons (1, 2, 2A, 3A(4), 3A(6), 6B(2)) and Article V §25(C), and recommended a 30‑day suspension without pay and reimbursement of $6,723.64 in costs.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the record de novo under the clear‑and‑convincing standard, accepted the Commission’s recommended discipline, but rejected the Commission’s conclusion that Judge Free violated Canon 3C (failure to recuse) as proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Free’s post‑December 1, 2009 ex parte communications and handling of recusal violated Canons 1, 2A, 3A(6), 3A(4) and Article V §25(C) | Dow/OSC: Judge Free engaged in improper ex parte communications, expressed bias, attempted to resolve the recusal informally, and thus infused bias into the case. | Free: Omission of plume maps in the August 29 judgment was likely a mistake; he reasonably believed his mother was not a class member and the recusal letter was tactical; his initial actions (before Dow moved) were permitted and he later referred the motion. | Court: Found ex parte communications and related conduct violated Canons 1, 2, 2A, 3A(4), 3A(6) and Article V §25(C), but did not find a clear and convincing violation of Canon 3C (failure to recuse). |
| Whether accepting an all‑expenses‑paid hunting trip from lawyers in a pending/recent case violated Canons 1, 2, 2A, 6B(2) and Article V §25(C) | OSC/Commission: The trip, paid by counsel in a case before him (timing near settlement/trial and use of firm jet), created an appearance of impropriety and was a prohibited benefit. | Free: He accompanied counsel to advise local counsel on a potential ranch purchase and did not pay expenses; activity was recreational/expert‑related, not a gift tied to judicial duties. | Court: Trip constituted a benefit from persons likely to appear before him and violated Canons 1, 2, 2A, 6B(2) and Article V §25(C). |
| Appropriate disciplinary sanction for combined misconduct | Commission: 30‑day suspension without pay and payment of costs ($6,723.64). | Free: Accepted most findings but contested recusal violation; urged lesser discipline. | Court: Adopted Commission’s recommendation — 30‑day suspension without pay and reimbursement of $6,723.64. |
| Standard and scope of appellate review in judicial discipline | Commission: Recommended discipline based on hearing‑record findings. | Free: Challenged some findings (notably recusal). | Court: Exercised original jurisdiction, applied clear‑and‑convincing standard, gave no deference to Commission but accepted most findings/conclusions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. A. Wilbert & Sons, LLC, 18 So.3d 125 (La. 2009) (recusal statute context and class membership principles)
- In re Quirk, 705 So.2d 172 (La. 1997) (Supreme Court’s role and fact‑finding in judicial discipline matters)
- In re Johnson, 683 So.2d 1196 (La. 1996) (clear‑and‑convincing standard in discipline cases)
- In re Huckaby, 656 So.2d 292 (La. 1995) (standard of proof for judicial discipline)
- In re Chaisson, 549 So.2d 259 (La. 1989) (factors for determining appropriate discipline)