Judicial Campaign Misconduct Draws Suspension

The Louisiana Supreme Court imposed a one-year suspension of an attorney who ran for a judicial office

In the fall of 2014, respondent was a candidate for the office of judge of the New Iberia City Court. During his campaign, respondent paid $1,760 to finance the printing and distribution of a flyer against one of his opponents, Theodore “Trey” Haik III. The campaign flyer truthfully stated that Mr. Haik and his family had received substantial fees for legal work performed for various governmental entities; however, it did not contain the required disclosure identifying respondent as the originator of the flyer. Respondent also failed to disclose on his campaign finance report that he paid to have the flyer printed and distributed.

The Louisiana Board of Ethics opened an investigation into the origins of the campaign flyer. On July 29, 2015, the Board of Ethics obtained a recorded statement from respondent, during which he was asked under oath whether he was the person responsible for the printing and distribution of the flyer. In response, respondent falsely told investigators that he did not pay for the flyer.

The ethics board f iled a bar complaint and a criminal referral.

While the disciplinary investigation was underway, respondent twice asked the person who distributed the flyer, Paul Camacho, to sign an affidavit or statement falsely stating that respondent did not provide the funds to print and distribute the flyer. Respondent intended to submit the false affidavit to the ODC, and in furtherance of this objective, he misled his own attorneys by providing them with false information to be included in the affidavit they prepared. However, Mr. Camacho never signed such an affidavit or statement, and respondent never submitted a false affidavit or statement in the course of any investigation or into the record of any judicial or disciplinary proceeding.

He pled guilty to a misdemeanor campaign finance law violation.

Sanction

Here, respondent’s violation of campaign finance laws, followed by his false statements to the Board of Ethics, is very similar to the misconduct seen in Richmond. However, respondent also attempted to convince a third party to sign a
false affidavit that he intended to offer to the ODC in an ongoing disciplinary investigation. Considering this additional, more egregious misconduct by respondent, we cannot agree with his argument for a six-month suspension, substantially deferred. Rather, we find that the misconduct to which respondent has stipulated, considered in its entirety, warrants the same one-year suspension we imposed in King. Our decision in this regard is reinforced by respondent’s admission that he engaged in deceptive practices by giving false testimony to the ODC during a sworn statement.

Based on this reasoning, we will adopt the board’s recommendation and suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year.

Justice Weimer

I find the goals of the disciplinary system would be met by deferring a portion of the respondent’s one-year suspension, consistent with the recommendations of the hearing committee.

(Mike Frisch)