La. R. Sup. Ct. 31

As amended through October 31, 2024

Section 31 - Deferred Recommendation of Discipline Agreement

After a notice of hearing has been filed, the Commission may enter into a Deferred Recommendation of Discipline Agreement (DRDA) with the respondent judge. A DRDA must contain the following provisions and may contain such other provisions as the Commission deems appropriate:

(a) The judge must admit to some or all of the ethical violations alleged in the notice of hearing, agree to an admonishment for such conduct, and agree to take specified remedial steps during the term of the DRDA to address any harm caused by the judge's conduct and to prevent a recurrence of such conduct. The judge must also consent to having the Commission recommend a specified type of discipline to this Court if the Commission determines by clear and convincing evidence, after a hearing before a hearing officer or the Commission, as decided by the Commission, that the judge did not comply with the terms and conditions of the DRDA.

(b) The Commission must agree to defer making a recommendation of discipline to this Court during the term of the DRDA provided its terms and conditions are complied with.

If the Commission makes a recommendation of discipline in a case in which a DRDA has been executed, this Court is not bound to impose the type of discipline referenced in the DRDA and may impose any discipline authorized by the Louisiana Constitution, or no discipline at all.

Before a hearing has been held on the allegations contained in a notice of hearing, the respondent judge may request, or the judge and the Special Counsel may jointly request, a DRDA within the time specified for such requests in the case management order. The request may be submitted in the form of a pleading or by letter to the Commission, in care of Commission Counsel, with a copy to the Special Counsel, and shall include a detailed statement of the terms and conditions of the proposed DRDA. If the Special Counsel has not joined in the request, the request shall also contain a statement as to the Special Counsel's position on the request, if known to the judge. Unless the request was made jointly by the judge and the Office of Special Counsel, the Commission shall grant the Office of Special Counsel an opportunity to respond to the request.

After a hearing has been held on the allegations contained in a notice of hearing and the judge has appeared before the Commission for further proceedings in accordance with Section 29(f) of this rule, the Commission may, in its discretion, propose to the judge that the case be resolved with a DRDA.

In deciding whether to grant a DRDA, the Commission may consider any factors it deems appropriate, including but not limited to the following:

(1) The nature and seriousness of the misconduct;

(2) The respondent judge's length of service on the bench;

(3) The nature of the procedures or steps the judge has taken, or proposes to take, to correct the problem and avoid a recurrence of it;

(4) Whether the misconduct was private or public;

(5) Whether the judge received any private benefit as the result of engaging in the ethical misconduct; and

(6) Whether the judge has previous proven misconduct.

DRDAs executed after the May 1, 2020, effective date of this amendment shall be public record and the underlying conduct and the fact that an admonishment was given pursuant to the DRDA may be referenced in another matter involving the judge in accordance with Section 3(e) of this rule. DRDAs executed prior to the effective date of this amendment shall be governed by the rules in place prior to the amendment's effective date.

La. R. Sup. Ct. 31

Amended effective 5/1/2020; amended effective 11/19/2021.