A Baton-Rouge area lawmaker and his client, a Metro Council member, have gotten their contempt of court hearing postponed thanks to the state Supreme Court — but some of the justices are cautioning the lawmaker not to abuse a legislative privilege.
The high court’s actions come as Rep. Edmond Jordan, D-Baton Rouge, pushes a bill to expand attorney-legislators’ power to delay court proceedings in the name of doing House or Senate business, after facing criticism from multiple judges over his use of that power.
Jordan has represented Councilman Cleve Dunn in a property dispute with Dunn’s next-door neighbors. Beau Higginbotham, the presiding judge in the case, awarded the neighbors $57,703.88 in damages after Dunn and Jordan failed to appear for a March 23 hearing, according to court records.
Jordan filed for and was denied a legislative continuance on the eve of the pivotal evidentiary hearing, saying it needed to be postponed because he was prepping for the Legislative session.
Legislative continuances are meant to prevent court schedules from interfering with lawmakers’ ability to work on behalf of their constituents. But Higgonbotham ruled that Jordan knew of the date well in advance and denied his request to postpone the hearing.
After Jordan and Dunn missed the court date, Higginbotham set an April 26 hearing to consider holding them both in contempt of court. But Jordan submitted a request to the Louisiana Supreme Court on April 18 petitioning for yet another legislative continuance to postpose the contempt hearing until at least 60 days after the Legislative session adjourns June 8.
This time he was successful.
In unanimously granting the writ on May 2, justices agreed that state law obligated the court to grant the continuance because Higginbotham scheduled the contempt hearing in the middle of the Legislative session.
Higginbotham has reset the contempt hearing for August 8.
But, even in ordering the new court date, some justices called for restraint from attorney-legislators who invoke their continuance privileges.
“Every right can be waived, and no right should be abused. It has been said that just because one may have a right to do something does not mean it is the right thing to do,” Justice William Crain wrote in a concurring opinion supported by Chief Judge John Weimer.
A change to the law?
Jordan is sponsoring House Bill 544, which proposes to expand the definition for what kind of work qualifies for the continuances.
Currently, state lawmakers can get delays in their criminal and civil cases 30 days prior to the Legislative session, through the entirety of the session and for 60 days after.
Jordan pre-filed the bill eight days after Higginbotham ruled against Dunn in the property dispute. A House committee approved the proposal, with some amendments, on Monday.
In his concurring opinion, Crain acknowledged that attorney-legislators are lawfully entitled to continuances upon request during the legislative period, but he pointed to the reality that courts have a duty to dispose of cases in a timely manner.
“Most parties to litigation are anxious for a resolution of their issue, regardless of the outcome,” Crain wrote. “The request for a continuance by any party can interrupt the effort of a court to provide parties their day in court. Any last-minute continuance disrupts the ability of judges to move matters on their dockets and resolve cases.”
Crain acknowledged that “attorneys who serve in the legislature have challenges imposed by their legislative responsibilities, which must be balanced with their obligations as officers of the court and their duties to their clients.”
“Often the hours in a day are far too few during legislative sessions,” he wrote.
Leave a Reply