Louisiana Voice

Rank no longer its privileges.

Well, at least insofar as the ability of lawyers who happen to also be legislators and their heretofore privilege of getting cases delayed simply by virtue of their part time duties as legislators.

For more than a century now, lawyers who double as legislators have enjoyed invoking a 1912 law that allowed them to get an automatic continuance simply by filing ex parte motions for extensions with the presiding judge that a scheduled case interfered with their legislative duties, including attendance at committee meetings as well as legislative sessions themselves.

No more.

The Louisiana Supreme Court, in a 6-1 DECISION, has ruled the practice is unconstitutional, bringing Louisiana with states like Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Nevada, Alaska and Vermont which had earlier clamped down on the practice that plaintiffs in the case said has come under growing abuse by legislator/lawyers.

The state high court’s decision most likely didn’t sit well with Sen. ALAN SEABAUGH and his law partner, Michael Melerine, Shreveport Republicans. They were, after all, the reason the law was challenged by Shreveport attorneys Joe Gregorio and J. Cole Sartin who said their client was unreasonably delayed a 2019 lawsuit after being hit by the two legislators’ client in an auto accident.

Gregorio said, “So now if they want a continuance because of legislative duties, they have to ask for a continuance like anyone else would and have a hearing on whether it is justified or not.”

Supreme Court Associate Justice Jay McCallum, the only member to cast the minority vote and himself a former legislator, nevertheless called the conduct of Seabaugh and Melerine in the case “repugnant.”

Associate Justice Jeff Hughes, in writing the majority opinion, said, “The constitution does not permit legislators who are also attorneys unchecked authority to continue any deadline whatsoever for any reason simply by virtue of their status as a legislator especially when doing so may not be in the best interest of their own client.

“Denying a court the power to decide matters historically considered as falling exclusively within the bailiwick of the judicial branch subverts the power of the judiciary in violation of the separation of powers doctrine,” he added.

Ironically, the legislator passed a bill to expand that privilege during the regular session earlier this year. Gov. Jeff Landry, saying he was uncomfortable with the “unchecked” manner of legislative continuances, vetoed the bill.

That appears to have put him at odds with his hand-picked successor for attorney general, Liz Murrill, who defended the old law and who disagreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling. “We are disappointed in the outcome but respect that the court has the authority to make that decision,” she said.

Senate President Cameron Henry (R-Metairie) said he was concerned that the ruling will disrupt the schedule for legislator-lawyers in the upcoming special session that Landry has called to overhaul the state’s tax laws.

“I’m definitely concerned that it will create a problem for members,” he said.