Louisiana Supreme Court calls lawmakers’ use of delays ‘egregious’ but may not scrap it
By: Julie O'Donoghue - September 6, 2024 8:13 am
Louisiana Supreme Court building in New Orleans (Wes Muller/Louisiana Illuminator)
NEW ORLEANS — The Louisiana Supreme Court expressed extreme displeasure with Sen. Alan Seabaugh for leveraging his role as a state lawmaker to prolong an automobile accident lawsuit for years.
But the justices didn’t appear convinced the law allowing legislators who are attorneys, like Seabaugh, to delay court proceedings should be declared unconstitutional.
The seven-person court heard oral arguments Thursday over whether Seabaugh and Rep. Michael Melerine, partners in a Shreveport law firm, violated the rights of Caddo Parish resident Theresa Fisher.
Fisher is suing for money to cover her medical expenses after an automobile accident in 2018.
Seabaugh and Melerine represent the driver who hit Fisher, Steven Harder Jr., his father Steven Harder Sr. and the father’s insurance company, Hanover Insurance Group.
Fisher’s attorneys have alleged Seabaugh and, more recently, Melerine unreasonably delayed resolution of the lawsuit, first filed in 2019, by demanding numerous extensions related to their legislative work. After five years, the case is finally expected to go to trial next month.
Seabaugh has served in the Legislature since 2011, including 12 years in the Louisiana House of Representatives. Melerine took his seat in the House in January.
Under law, state judges must postpone deadlines and court appearances for attorneys who are lawmakers if the proceedings will interfere with their legislative work.
The question before the Louisiana Supreme Court is whether those automatic extensions represent an unchecked power for lawmakers.
Legislators who are attorneys contend it would be difficult for them to continue to serve in public office if they had to worry about their law practice and clients while in their lawmaking sessions. Twenty-nine other legislators, Democrats and Republicans who are mostly attorneys, signed a brief to the Supreme Court backing Seabaugh and Melerine in the case.
“[Fisher and her lawyers] want to throw the baby out with the bath water,” said Larry Frieman, a former lawmaker and the state’s chief deputy attorney general, who defended the law in court Thursday.
‘Disappointing’ delay
The justices made it clear they were unhappy with Seabaugh and, to a lesser extent, Melerine’s conduct in the Fisher case.
Justice Jay McCallum referred to it as “disappointing” and “repugnant.” Jeannette Theriot Knoll, a former justice who has been temporarily appointed to fill the seat vacated by James Genovese, called it “egregious” and “unconscionable.”
“I don’t think you’ll find anyone that likes what’s going on here,” McCallum said.
Justice William Crain was aghast that Seabaugh had allegedly agreed to a trial court date in May 2023, a month that is the height of the regular legislative session every year. Seabaugh later backed out and asked for a legislative extension, according to Fisher’s attorneys.
“He should never agree to a trial date during the session unless he intends to show up,” Crain told Frieman.
The justices also appeared frustrated that Seabaugh, while in the middle of this legal dispute, authored legislation that would have saddled Fisher and her attorneys with extra legal expenses for challenging him.
Senate Bill 185 would have required attorneys who fight legislative continuances to pay the court costs and legal expenses for opposing state lawmakers. It also would have prohibited lawmakers from using the extensions for cases involving protective orders, stalking, domestic violence and sexual assault.
Lawmakers passed the legislation unanimously, but the measure didn’t become law. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry vetoed the proposal over concerns that it would give lawmakers too much authority over legal extensions.
Justice Piper Griffin, a Democrat from New Orleans, agreed with Landry’s sentiment Thursday.
“Every single legislative session, there’s an attempt to make [the legislative continuance law] more draconian,” Griffin said, later adding: “It’s causing problems.”
When it comes to the Fisher lawsuit, the delays have caused so much frustration that even one of Seabaugh and Melerine’s clients in lawsuit, Steven Harder Sr., sided with Fisher’s attorneys. He is also asking the justices to limit or throw out the legislative continuance law.
Vernon Richie, a new attorney for Steven Harder Sr., said the lack of resolution to the lawsuit causes stress for his client’s family. They aren’t sure how much they will have to pay Fisher if she wins the case, and the uncertainty has put them in financial limbo for years.
“They need closure,” Richie told the justices.
Frieman, who worked closely with Seabaugh as a legislator, also tried to distance himself from his former colleague while defending statute.
“I really don’t want to talk about whether Sen. Seabaugh was right or wrong. I’m not here to defend him,” Frieman said at the hearing.
In an unusual move, Seabaugh and Melerine did not appear in person Thursday or file a brief for the justices to review ahead of time. Instead, they asked in early August to be removed from the case altogether.
Their pending withdrawal appeared to strengthen Frieman’s push to keep the law in place. He said the justices no longer had to rule on legislative continuances because the lawmakers would not be involved in the lawsuit moving forward.
In a legal brief, Fisher’s lawyers described Seabaugh’s and Melerine’s decision to drop out as cynical and a “blatant attempt to sidestep this court’s review of the statute.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Law limitations
Attorneys J. Cole Sartin and Joseph Gregorio, who also represent Fisher, argued the current legislative extension law is an overreach of the Legislature into judicial matters. It prohibits judges from being able to manage their docket and move trials along, Sartin said.
They did not suggest doing away with legislative continuances completely but want to see more guardrails in place. The law should be more specific about when a lawmaker who is an attorney can request a postponement, and opposing counsel should also be able to challenge continuations, Sartin said.
The statute is written broadly. Lawmaker attorneys can seek an extension from the court for any time 30 days before until 30 days after a legislative session, as well as for travel and other meetings they attend as an elected official.
One justice who served as a state lawmaker, McCallum, questioned whether the law, while sometimes abused, reached the level of being unconstitutional.
The Legislature passes other statutes that tie the hands of judges, McCallum said. For example, lawmakers have imposed mandatory life sentences in prison with no option of parole for people convicted of murder. Judges aren’t given discretion to change those punishments, he said.
Nevertheless, McCallum said there may also be “remedies” to limit misuse. He suggested it might clear problems up if extension requests were sent to the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, which could then monitor whether the benefit was being abused.
Limiting the number of legislative continuances that can be granted per case would be another option, Knoll said.
Wider problem
Seabaugh and Melerine aren’t the only lawmakers who have been accused of abusing this privilege.
In a legal brief supporting Fisher’s arguments, attorney Jennifer Prescott alleged she handled a civil lawsuit that took too long to resolve because the opposing attorney, Rep. Kyle Green, used 10 legislative continuances to delay proceedings over two and half years.
Democratic Rep. Edmond Jordan angered a judge last year and lost a case when he filed legislative continuances and did not appear in court.
Perhaps most seriously, Barron Bailey of Webster Parish said he has been stuck in jail for the past five years without a trial in part because his attorney, Democratic Sen. Katrina Jackson, has used legislative extensions.
“I’ve been represented by Ms. Jackson since December 2019. I feel that she has only filed one motion in my case,” Bailey told KTBS-TV last month. “They say no news is good news, but she is not representing me to the best of her ability. She works mainly through paralegals and a private investigator.”
Bailey faces second-degree murder and first-degree feticide charges in the 2019 death of Na’Toyedre Barrow, who was eight months pregnant at the time of her death. Bailey says he is innocent.
Prosecutor Hugo Holland, who works for district attorneys across the state, also blamed Jackson’s legislative extensions for the Baily’s trial delay.
“I cannot get it to trial because the defense attorney is constantly using the legislative continuance statute,” he told the television station.
Jackson did not respond to an interview request from KTBS-TV.