Writ granted. The trial courts denial of the legislative continuance is reversed. The continuance is granted and the matter is remanded to the trial court to reset the trial date within its discretion and in conformity with La. R.S. 13:4163.
The court hearing in this matter is set for 9 a.m., and the legislative meeting is scheduled for 1:30 this afternoon. Because the court hearing should conclude this morning and given the proximity of the court house and the state capitol, under the unique facts, circumstances, and history of this case, I would deny the request for a continuance.
Respectfully, I would deny the writ. It appears applicant as Chairman set the committee meeting after the trial date was set. Putting aside issues of timeliness, such gamesmanship violates the oath of one privileged to practice law in this state, especially given the eight prior legislative continuances sought by applicant. Trial should be re-set immediately.
In light of the unusual and troublesome circumstances under which this case has presented itself, I agree with the majority that the trial court erred in denying the legislative continuance pursuant to La. R.S. 13:4163. However, I write separately to note that, in the future, this Court must examine La. R.S. 13:4163 in the context of its improper use to manipulate and gain an unfair advantage in litigation.
The trial court denied what the opposition says is applicants ninth request for a legislative continuance pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statute 13:4163. In an order signed on September 5, 2022, the trial court set this case for trial on November 10, 2022, beginning at 9:00 a.m. On October 13, 2022, applicants counsel, who was co-chairing a legislative committee, scheduled a meeting of the committee for the trial date, November 10, 2022, beginning at 1:30 p.m. Counsel then waited until November 4, 2020, the Friday before the week of trial, at 10:49 p.m. to request a continuance. The 1:00 p.m. legislative meeting does not conflict with the 9:00 a.m. trial. The trial can be recessed, if not concluded, to accommodate the meeting. See La. R.S. 13:4163E(2)(b). Further, a lawyer-legislator is not relieved of his obligations under the Code of Professional Conduct. Rule 3.5D of the Code of Professional Conduct provides: “A lawyer shall not ․ engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.”
Weimer, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Hughes, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., dissents and assigns reasons.