In Re: Justice of the Peace Lorne L. Landry Plaquemines Parish, Ward 8 State of Louisiana , 2015 La. LEXIS 491 ( 2015 )

Supreme Court of Louisiana
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #013
FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The Opinions handed down on the 17th day of March, 2015, are as follows:
BY CRICHTON, J.:
2014-O -2335 IN RE: JUSTICE OF THE PEACE LORNE L. LANDRY PLAQUEMINES PARISH,
WARD 8 STATE OF LOUISIANA (Judiciary Commission)
Accordingly, it is ordered that Justice of the Peace Landry pay a
civil penalty to the State of Louisiana, Judicial Branch, in the
amount of $500, plus costs in the amount of $301.50, no later
than thirty days from the finality of this judgment. In
addition, Justice of the Peace Landry is ordered to file his 2011
financial disclosure statement no later than fifteen days from
the finality of this judgment. Failure to comply with the orders
of this court may result in a finding of contempt.
03/17/15
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2014-O-2335
IN RE: JUSTICE OF THE PEACE LORNE L. LANDRY
PLAQUEMINES PARISH, WARD 8
STATE OF LOUISIANA
JUDICIARY COMMISSION OF LOUISIANA
CRICHTON, J.
This matter arises from a recommendation of the Judiciary Commission of
Louisiana (“Commission”) regarding the failure of Justice of the Peace Lorne L.
Landry (“Respondent”) to comply with the financial reporting requirements of
Supreme Court Rule XXXIX (“Rule XXXIX”). We find the record establishes by
clear and convincing evidence that Respondent willfully and knowingly failed to
comply with the filing requirement of Rule XXXIX, thereby subjecting him to
discipline. After considering the facts, circumstances, and applicable law,
Respondent is ordered to pay a civil penalty to the State of Louisiana, Judicial
Branch, in the amount of $500, plus costs in the amount of $301.50, no later than
thirty days from the finality of this decision; Respondent is further ordered to file
his 2011 financial disclosure statement no later than fifteen days from the finality
of this decision. Failure to comply with the orders of this court may result in a
finding of contempt.1
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Rule XXXIX requires the filing of annual financial disclosure statements by
judges and justices of the peace.2 3 Pursuant to § 2 of this rule, all elected justices
1
See In re Hoffman, 11-0417 (La. 6/22/12) 92 So. 3d 334; In re Cook, 11-0715 (La.
6/22/12), 92 So. 3d 333
2
Effective February 27, 2014, Supreme Court Rule XXXIX was amended to
prospectively eliminate the reporting requirement for justices of the peace. The instant case
arose prior to the amendment.
of the peace must file their financial statement by May 15 th of each year, using a
form prescribed by the Office of the Judicial Administrator, Supreme Court of
Louisiana (“JAO”) for that purpose.4 In the instant case, Respondent has been
charged with failing to file timely his personal financial disclosure statement for
the calendar year 2011 as required by Rule XXXIX.
Respondent was an elected justice of the peace for Plaquemines Parish,
Ward 8 during the 2011 calendar year. Respondent’s 2011 financial statement was
due on May 15, 2012; it is undisputed that the financial statement was not received
by that date. Accordingly, on June 11, 2012, the JAO sent Respondent a notice of
delinquency by certified mail advising him that the 2011 Statement “must be filed
no later than fourteen (14) business days after receipt of this notice of delinquency,
or by July 3, 2012.” The notice of delinquency also stated that failure to file the
2011 Statement by the deadline “shall result in referral to the Judiciary
Commission and the imposition of penalties as provided in Section 4 of Rule
XXXIX.”
Because the delinquency notice went unclaimed at the Port Sulphur Post
Office, the JAO sent another letter to Respondent’s physical address dated July 6,
2012, extending the filing deadline to July 30, 2012. Respondent did not respond
to the second delinquency notice, which was also unclaimed, nor did he respond to
an inquiry letter sent from the Judiciary Commission’s Office of Special Counsel
(“OSC”) on October 22, 2012, regarding his 2011 Statement. On February 26,
2013, the Commission filed a Formal Charge against Respondent. He was served
with the Formal Charge on March 5, 2013, but failed to file an answer thereto; he
also failed to answer the OSC’s discovery requests.
3
See In re Thomas, 11-0572, p. 2 (La. 7/1/2011), 66 So. 3d 466, 467; In re Sanborn, 10-
2051, p. 2 (La. 11/30/10), 50 So. 3d 1279.
4
Supreme Court Rule XXXIX § 2.
2
Thereafter, the matter was set for a hearing before a hearing officer, retired
Judge Andrew Gallagher, on May 24, 2013. As of the date of the hearing,
Respondent still had not filed his 2011 Statement. During the hearing, Respondent
testified that he “overlooked” filing his 2011 Statement because he had “a lot on
his mind,” and he was dealing with personal issues – specifically, he was caring for
his mother and mother-in-law, who both were ill, the cumulative effect of which
prevented him from timely filing his 2011 Statement. However, Respondent
admitted his mother’s illness and his mother-in-law’s illness were “no excuse,” and
that he “should have taken care of [his] job.” Respondent also admitted that he did
not open the certified mail sent to him by the JAO and the OSC.
Following the hearing, the hearing officer filed findings of fact and
conclusions of law with the Commission. In his report, the hearing officer found
that Respondent failed to timely file his 2011 Statement, and that his failure was
willful and knowing, as that term is defined in Rule XXXIX, because he made a
purposeful choice not to take the time, trouble, or effort to comply with the rule.
The Commissioners then invited, but did not order or require, Respondent to
appear before them on August 23, 2013, to make a statement concerning the
hearing officer’s report and the penalty issue. Respondent did not attend the
August meeting, nor did he file a brief.
On November 6, 2014, the Commission filed its recommendation in this
Court. In its report, the Commission generally adopted the hearing officer’s
proposed conclusions of fact and law, finding that the allegations of the Formal
Charge were proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Commission observed
that Respondent was undoubtedly aware of Rule XXXIX and familiar with the
financial disclosure form, as demonstrated by the successful filing of his 2009
Statement and attendance at several Justice of the Peace and Constable
Conferences, which included sessions on the financial disclosure form explaining
3
how to fill the form out and where to send it. Under these circumstances, the
Commission concluded that Respondent made a deliberate choice not to file his
2011 Statement:
The Commission finds it especially troubling that JP Landry failed to
retrieve certified mail and failed to open or read mail that he did
receive. Although the Commission is sympathetic to the demands
placed upon JP Landry by the illness and death of his mother and then
his fiancée’s mother, such circumstances do not excuse his failure to
comply with his judicial duties. The Commission further finds it
troubling that JP Landry, although admitting his error at the May 24,
2013 hearing, still has not filed his 2011 Statement to date.
For his willful and knowing conduct, the Commission recommended that
Responded be ordered to pay a civil penalty of $500 and be ordered to file his 2011
Statement within the delay established by the court or face additional proceedings
for failing to comply with the court’s order. The Commission also recommended
that Responded be cast with $301.50 in costs.
DISCUSSION
We have discussed Rule XXXIX and its requirements pertaining to justices
of the peace in several cases.5 Failure to complete to complete and properly file
the financial statements creates the opportunity for negligence or even fraud, and at
the very least, noncompliance erodes confidence in public officials.6 Violations of
Rule XXXIX must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.7 It is undisputed
that Respondent failed to file the financial disclosure statement. Therefore, the
only remaining issue is whether this failure was “willful and knowing.”
The following definition of “willful and knowing” is incorporated into Rule
XXXIX, § 3(F)(3):
For purposes of Rule XXXIX, ‘willful and knowing’ means conduct
involving bad faith, dishonest motive or a purposeful choice not to file
the financial disclosure statement in order to obtain some personal or
5
See, e.g., In re Cook, supra, and cases cited therein
6
In re Myers, 14-1528, p. 5 (La. 10/15/14)
7
In re Threet, 11-0785 (La. 10/25/11), 74 So. 3d 679, 684.
4
professional gain (including, but not limited to, a desire not to disclose
one’s personal assets to the public, or the desire not to take the time,
trouble and effort to complete the form with the knowledge that it is
required by a certain date).
Respondent’s conduct satisfies this definition. Despite abundant opportunity
to comply with Rule XXXIX, as of the date of oral argument, Respondent had yet
to file a single document towards that end. In fact, Respondent admitted he
received the mail from the OSC and the JAO but had not bothered to open the
letters. Such unyielding indifference as demonstrated by Respondent’s conduct is
highly troublesome to this Court. Numbers alone illustrate our concern: As of
January 29, 2015, Respondent’s 2011 Statement was 989 days overdue from the
original May 15, 2012 deadline. Were penalties to be imposed from May 15,
2012, to March 10, 2015, at $50 per day8, the total penalty due would be
$51,450.00 – a staggeringly high penalty – considering that completion of the
financial disclosure requirement of Rule XXXIX is by all objective measures
simple, clear, and undemanding. Respondent’s continuing failure to comply with
Rule XXXIX and his admittedly cavalier attitude towards the process as a whole
negates any reasonable inference of mere negligence; therefore, we conclude his
conduct constitutes a willful and knowing violation of Rule XXXIX.
We next decide the appropriate penalty for Respondent’s continuing failure
to file his 2011 Statement. Violations of Rule XXXIX are decided on a case by
case basis. As such, our penalty assessments in prior cases should not be
understood as absolutes; rather, they are to be construed as benchmarks helpful to
the Court in fairly administering justice. In recommending discipline, the
Commission suggested that this Court impose a civil penalty commensurate to the
penalties imposed in other first offense Rule XXXIX cases.
8
La. S. Ct. R. XXXIX § 4(F)(7) provided for the imposition of civil penalties up to fifty
dollars per day for failure to file by justices of the peace (in effect until February 27, 2014).
5
A similar factual scenario was presented in In Re Cook, 11-0715 (La.
10/25/11), 74 So. 3d 667. In that case, JP Cook failed to file his 2009 Statement
because he was caring for his dying mother, and he ignored the delinquency
notices sent by the JAO.9 The Court found JP Cook’s failure to file timely was
negligent, rather than willful and knowing and assessed a $200.00 civil penalty.10
This case is distinguishable from In re Cook. JP Cook failed to file his 2009
Personal Financial Disclosure Statement and claimed he was unaware of Rule
XXXIX.11 In this case, Respondent was aware of Rule XXXIX, the possible
penalties, and he even filed a prior Statement. Also, once JP Cook realized he
needed to file his 2009 Statement, he telephoned the JAO and filed it the same
day.12 Here, Respondent has not filed his 2011 Statement despite numerous
notices and a full evidentiary hearing.
In July 2011, this Court in In re Hoffman rejected the Commission’s
recommendation that a justice of the peace pay a civil penalty of $5,150.00 for
failing to file his 2009 Personal Financial Disclosure Statement timely, but warned,
“in the future, such leniency or benefit of the doubt will not be extended.”13 In
Hoffman and its companion cases, In re Thomas and In Re Flaherty, this Court
assessed a $200.00 civil penalty based upon the finding that those justices of the
peace negligently failed to comply, as opposed to willfully and knowingly failing
to file timely.14 Then in October 2011, the Court found for the first time, in three
9
No. 11-0715, p.5; (La. 10/25/11), 74 So. 3d at 670.
10
Id. at 672.
11
Id. at 670 .
12
Id.
13
11-0417, p. 8 (La. 07/01/11), 66 So. 3d 455, 460.
14
In re Thomas, 11-0572, p. 6 (La. 07/01/11), 66 So. 3d 466, 470; In re Flaherty, 11-
0418, p. 8 (La. 07/01/11), 66 So. 3d 461, 464, 466.
6
separate cases, that the justices of the peace had willfully and knowingly failed to
comply and assessed a $500.00 civil penalty against each of them.15
In 2012, this Court decided In Re LuAnn Landry, 12-1946 (La. 12/04/12),
105 So. 3d 707. In Landry, the justice of the peace argued she was prevented from
filing her 2010 Statement because she was caring for her gravely-ill father.16 The
Court imposed a civil penalty of $500.00 plus costs citing the Commission’s
finding that JP LuAnn Landry continued to treat her obligations under Rule
XXXIX as a matter of little or no importance even after her father’s death.”17
Here, Respondent’s mother-in-law passed away approximately two months before
the hearing in May 2013, yet similar to JP LuAnn Landry, he continues to treat his
obligations under Rule XXXIX as being of little or no importance. By his own
admission, Respondent confessed that his mother’s illness and his mother-in-law’s
illness were “no excuse,” further stating, “I should have taken care of my job.”
The Commission suggested that this Court impose a civil penalty of $500
plus costs. This amount is in accord with previous first offense Rule XXXIX
cases, and as such, we agree with and adopt the Commission’s suggestion.
DECREE
Upon review of the findings and recommendation of the Judiciary
Commission, and considering the record filed herein, we find the record establishes
by clear and convincing evidence that Justice of the Peace Landry has failed to
comply with the financial disclosure requirement of Rule XXXIX, thereby
subjecting him to a civil monetary penalty. We further find that his continuing
failure to comply with the financial disclosure requirement has been willful and
15
In re LaGrange, 11-0714, p. 9 (La. 10/25/11), 74 So. 3d 661, 667; In re Myers, 11-
0874, p. 10 (La. 10/25/11), 74 So. 3d 672, 679; Threet, 11-0785, p.10, 74 So. 3d 679, 685.
16
No. 12-1946, p. 4 (La. 12/04/12), 105 So. 3d at 709.
17
Id.
7
knowing. Accordingly, it is ordered that Justice of the Peace Landry pay a civil
penalty to the State of Louisiana, Judicial Branch, in the amount of $500, plus
costs in the amount of $301.50, no later than thirty days from the finality of this
judgment. In addition, Justice of the Peace Landry is ordered to file his 2011
financial disclosure statement no later than fifteen days from the finality of this
judgment. Failure to comply with the orders of this court may result in a finding of
contempt.18
18
See Hoffman, supra; Cook, supra; Threet, supra.
8