writ petition

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

No. No. ______________________ ______________________

________________________________________________ IN IN THE THE SUPREME COURT OF OF THE THE UNITED UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT STATES

________________________________________________ JANICE M. M. HORNOT, HORNOT, Petitioner Petitioner VERSUS VERSUS

LEONARD LEONARD CARDENAS CARDENASIII, III, Respondent Respondent

_________________________________________________ ON ON PETITION PETITION FOR FOR A A WRIT WRIT OF OF CERTIORARI CERTIORARI TO THE THE LOUISIANA LOUISIANAFIRST FIRST CIRCUIT CIRCUITCOURT COURT OF OF APPEAL APPEAL

_________________________________________________ PETITION PETITIONFOR FORWRIT WRITOF OFCERTIORARI CERTIORARI

_________________________________________________ Harvey III Harvey S. S. Bartlett III Counsel of Record Counsel of Record The Bartlett Law Firm, Firm, APLC APLC 5000 West Esplanade Avenue, 5000 West Esplanade Avenue, Box Box 632 632 Metairie, Metairie, Louisiana Louisiana70006 70006 (504) (504) 756-6334 756-6334 Counsel for Petitioner Petitioner Counsel for

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

QUESTIONS QUESTIONSPRESENTED PRESENTED 1. 1.

Is there aa right right under under the the Fourteenth Fourteenth Amendment’s Amendment’sdue dueprocess process guarantee guarantee to be represented represented at at trial trial by by retained retained counsel counsel in in civil civilmatters, matters,and andwas wasthis this right thethe trialtrial court’s denial of a continuance to allow rightviolated violatedbyby court’s denial of a continuance to the allow the petitioner replace hired counsel who failed appear trial, for trial, petitionertoto replace hired counsel who to failed to for appear compelling compellingthe thepetitioner petitionertotoproceed proceedpro prose? se?

2. 2.

Is there under the Due Clause Clause of the Fourteenth therea aright right under the Process Due Process of the Fourteenth Amendment civil trial trial by a trial from free hostility andhostility and Amendmenttoto civil by judge a trialfree judge from appearance of and was thisthis rightright violated by theby trialthe trial of pre-judgment, pre-judgment, and was violated court’s comments at the commencement commencement of of trial that that he he did didnot notbelieve believethe the petitioner petitioner should shouldtake takethe thestand standand andthat thathe hewanted wantedtotoget getthe thecase caseoff offhis his docket?

3. 3.

Can a formulation formulation ofofaacause pleading in ainlawsuit, causeofofaction actionininananinitial initial pleading a lawsuit, so long as it is is pertinent pertinenttotothe thelegal legalproceedings, proceedings,be bethe thebasis basisfor forliability liability for under thisthis Court’s formulation of the absolute for defamation, defamation,either either under Court’s formulation of the absolute privilege statements in judicial proceedings or under morethe more privilegeforfor statements in judicial proceedings orthe under qualified qualified privilege privilegeemployed employedininother otherjurisdictions? jurisdictions?

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

LIST LIST OF OF PARTIES PARTIES All thethe caption of this casecase on the page.page. As allAs all Allparties partiesappear appearinin caption of this on cover the cover parties are natural natural persons, is required. required. persons, no no statement statement under underU.S. U.S. S. S. Ct. Rule 29.6 29.6 is

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

TABLE TABLE OF OF CONTENTS CONTENTS Questions Presented

List of of Parties Table of Contents

Table of Cited Authorities Authorities Opinions Opinions Below Below Statement of Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Statement of

Constitutional ConstitutionalProvisions ProvisionsInvolved Involved Statement of of the the Case Case

Reasons forGranting Granting the the Writ Writ Reasons for A.

Review is is Warranted WarrantedtotoResolve ResolveaaConflict ConflictBetween Betweenthe theLouisiana Louisiana Court’s Court’s Decision Decision and and Decisions Decisions of of this this Court Courtand andofofthe theU.S. U.S.Courts Courts of Appeals Regarding the Constitutional Guarantees Related to to Appeals Regarding the Constitutional Guarantees Related Retention Representation by Hired Counsel in Civil in Civil Retention ofofand and Representation by Hired Counsel Proceedings.

B. B.

Review is is Warranted WarrantedtotoResolve ResolveaaConflict ConflictBetween Betweenthe theLouisiana Louisiana Court’s Court’s Decision Decision and and Decisions Decisions of of this this Court Courtand andofofthe theU.S. U.S.Courts Courts of Appeals thethe Constitutional Guarantee to a NonAppealsRegarding Regarding Constitutional Guarantee to a NonHostile Hostile and and Fair Fair Tribunal. Tribunal.

C.

Review Resolve Whether thethe FirstFirst Amendment Review isisWarranted Warrantedtoto Resolve Whether Amendment Requires aa Privilege Liability for Pleadings in in PrivilegeFrom FromDefamation Defamation Liability for Pleadings Judicial if so, the Minimum Judicial Proceedings, Proceedings,and, and, if to so,Determine to Determine the Minimum Protections of Such aa Privilege. Privilege.

Conclusion Appendix III, No. No. 2007 2007 CA CA 1489 1489(La. (La. App. App. AppendixA:A:Janice Janice M. M. Hornot Hornotv.v.Leonard Leonard Cardenas Cardenas III, 1st Cir. June 2008) (opinion (opinion of Court of of June 20, 2008) of Louisiana LouisianaFirst FirstCircuit Circuit Court Appeal) Appeal)

Appendix III, No. 534,772 AppendixB: B:Janice Janice M. M. Hornot Hornot v.v.Leonard Leonard Cardenas Cardenas III, 534,772 (La. 19th Jud. Dist. Ct. Feb. 16, 16, 2007) 2007)(written (written judgment judgment and oral and oral reasons) reasons) Appendix III, No. AppendixC: C:Janice Janice M. M. Hornot Hornotv.v.Leonard Leonard Cardenas Cardenas III, No. 2008-C-2131 2008-C-2131 (La. Sept. 26, 2008) (order (order denying writ of certiorari and/or 26, 2008) denyingapplication applicationforfor writ of certiorari and/or review) review)

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

OPINIONS OPINIONSBELOW BELOW The Petitioner respectfully respectfully requests requests that a writ writof ofcertiorari certiorariissue issuetotoreview review the judgments courts of of thethe State of of Louisiana as as judgments in inthis thismatter matterrendered renderedbybythe the courts State Louisiana follows: to to review thethe merits of this case, follows: The The opinion opinionofofthe thehighest higheststate statecourt court review merits of this case, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, appears at Appendix A to thisA to this LouisianaFirst FirstCircuit Circuit Court of Appeal, appears at Appendix 1 petition, Louisiana FirstFirst Circuit CourtCourt of Appeal’s petition,and andisisunpublished.1 unpublished.The The Louisiana Circuit of Appeal’s

decision part thethe judgment of the Nineteenth JudicialJudicial decision affirmed affirmedinin part judgment ofLouisiana the Louisiana Nineteenth District District Court Courtfor forthe theParish ParishofofEast EastBaton BatonRouge, Rouge, at at Appendix AppendixBBtotothis thispetition.2 petition.2 The Louisiana denied thethe Petitioner’s application for writ LouisianaSupreme SupremeCourt Court denied Petitioner’s application forofwrit of certiorari of of Appeal’s decision onon certiorari and and review reviewofofthe theLouisiana LouisianaFirst FirstCircuit CircuitCourt Court Appeal’s decision September 26,2008, 2008,which whichdenial denialisisat atAppendix Appendix C to this petition.3 September 26, petition.3

1

Janice M. Hornot Hornot v. v. Leonard LeonardCardenas CardenasIII, III,No. No.2007 2007CA CA 1489 1489(La. (La. App. App. 1st 1 Janice M. Cir. June Cir. June 20, 20, 2008). 2008). 2 Janice M. Hornot Hornot v. Leonard Leonard Cardenas CardenasIII, III,No. No. 534,772 534,772(La. (La.19th 19th Jud. Jud. Dist. Dist. Ct. 2 Janice M. Feb. 16, 2007). Feb. 16, 2007). 3 3 Janice M. Hornot v. III, No. Janice M. v. Leonard Leonard Cardenas Cardenas III, No. 2008-C-2131 2008-C-2131 (La. (La. Sept. Sept. 26, 26, 2008). 2008).

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

STATEMENT STATEMENTOF OFJURISDICTION JURISDICTION As indicated indicated above, above, and and as shown in in Appendix AppendixCCtotothis thispetition, petition,the thedate date on which which the the Louisiana Louisiana Supreme Supreme Court Courtentered entered its its order orderdenying denyingthe thePetitioner’s Petitioner’s application to to that Court in this matter was September 26, 2008. The The applicationfor forwrits writs that Court in this matter was September 26, 2008. ninetieth ninetieth day day following followingthe theissuance issuanceofofthat thatorder orderwas wasDecember December25, 25,2008; 2008; due due to to that day this Court’s closure on on December 26, 26, andand the the day being beingaafederal federalholiday, holiday, this Court’s closure December following onon weekend days, thisthis petition is due to betofiled no no followingtwo twodays daysfalling falling weekend days, petition is due be filed later than 2008.This Thispetition petition is therefore timely timely filed than December December 29, 29, 2008. filedunder underU.S. U.S.S. S. Ct. Rule of this CourtCourt is invoked under 28 U.S.C. Rule13.1, 13.1,and andthe thejurisdiction jurisdiction of this is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § § 1257(a). 1257(a).

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED 1. 1.

United UnitedStates States Constitution ConstitutionFirst FirstAmendment Amendment “Congress shall thethe freedom of of speech, shall make make no nolaw law……abridging abridging freedom speech, or of the press ….” press ….”

2. 2.

United UnitedStates States Constitution ConstitutionFourteenth FourteenthAmendment Amendment “Section 1. … No No state state shall shall … … deprive deprive any person of of life, liberty, liberty, or or property, property, without withoutdue dueprocess processof oflaw law….” ….”

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

STATEMENT STATEMENTOF OFTHE THECASE CASE The Petitioner, anan attorney whowho hashas been licensed to to Petitioner,Janice Janice Hornot, Hornot,is is attorney been licensed practice law law in in the the State State of Louisiana Louisiana for for more morethan thantwenty-eight twenty-eightyears. years.InInMarch March 1996, Ms. Hornot Hornot was seriously injured 1996, Ms. injuredininan anautomobile automobileaccident; accident;subsequently, subsequently, represented attorney, she filed in connection with that with that represented by byanother another attorney, she suit filed suit in connection automobile damages related to her injuries. AfterAfter her her automobile accident accidentfor forrecovery recoveryofof damages related to her injuries. counsel filed herher behalf andand conducted initialinitial discovery, Ms. Hornot filedsuit suitonon behalf conducted discovery, Ms. Hornot contacted the Respondent, Respondent, Leonard Leonard Cardenas, Cardenas, to to take take over over her her representation. representation. In

October 2001, Mr. Cardenas thethe automobile 2001, Mr. Cardenas agreed agreed to torepresent representMs. Ms.Hornot Hornotinin automobile accident matter.

As discovery defendants proposed thatthat the parties discoveryneared neareda aclose, close,the the defendants proposed the parties enter mediation. Cardenas informed Ms. Hornot that counsel for the for the mediation.Mr. Mr. Cardenas informed Ms. Hornot that counsel defendants had had committed had indicated indicatedthat thathe hehad hadevidence evidencethat thatMs. Ms.Hornot Hornot had committed insurance fraud oror manner, butbut Mr.Mr. Cardenas did not the the fraudininsome someway way manner, Cardenas didknow not know basis for Mr.Mr. Cardenas did did not relay what what for the theaccusation accusationofofinsurance insurancefraud. fraud. Cardenas not relay information have, to to corroborate such anan informationthe thedefendant’s defendant’scounsel counselhad, had,orormight might have, corroborate such accusation, nor the matter further; rather, he informed Ms. Ms. nor did didhe heinvestigate investigate the matter further; rather, he informed Hornot asas her counsel she not agree toto participate Hornot that thathe he would wouldwithdraw withdraw her counselif if shedid did not agree participate in reluctantly attended thethe in the the proposed proposed mediation. mediation.InInSpring Spring2002, 2002,Ms. Ms.Hornot Hornot reluctantly attended mediation. mediation, Mr.Mr. Cardenas again related to Ms.toHornot the mediation.At Atthe the mediation, Cardenas again related Ms. Hornot the accusations of butbut would not tell leveled the of insurance insurancefraud, fraud, would nother tellwho herhad who had leveled the accusation nor about the the basis of the Ms. Ms. nor any anyfurther furtherinformation information about basis of accusation; the accusation; Hornot, sheshe hadhad done nothing wrong, felt intimidated by the by the Hornot,while whilecertain certain done nothing wrong, felt intimidated prospect of charges or or investigation thatthat might stigmatize of any any civil civilororcriminal criminal charges investigation might stigmatize her and harm harm her her professional professionalpractice, practice, and andso so agreed agreed to to aa settlement settlement amount amountof of

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

$95,000.00. Indeed,her her anxiety anxiety over the uncorroborated $95,000.00. Indeed, uncorroboratedaccusations accusationsrelayed relayedby by Mr. great thatthat she she never took took actionaction to perfect the finalthe final Mr. Cardenas Cardenaswas wassoso great never to perfect disbursement of of the the settlement settlement funds. funds. In InApril April2003, 2003,she shesought soughtthe thereturn returnofofher her file file from fromMr. Mr.Cardenas, Cardenas, but butonly onlyreceived receivedaacopy copyof offile filematerials, materials,rather ratherthan thanany any of the original she originalmaterials, materials,and andnoted notedthat thatcertain certaintax taxdocuments documentsthat that shebelieved believed to be part of the file were missing. In July onon herher own behalf, brought thisthis July 2005, 2005, Ms. Hornot, Hornot,acting actinginitially initially own behalf, brought suit against Mr. thethe Parish Mr. Cardenas Cardenas in in the the Nineteenth NineteenthJudicial JudicialDistrict DistrictCourt Courtforfor Parish of East arising from Mr. Mr. East Baton Baton Rouge, Rouge, State State of ofLouisiana, Louisiana,for forcauses causesofofaction action arising from 4 Cardenas’s representation accident case.4 representation of ofher herininthe theautomobile automobile accident case.Specifically, Specifically,

Ms. Hornot inter alia, thatthat (1) Mr. actions or omissions Hornotalleged, alleged, inter alia, (1) Cardenas’s Mr. Cardenas’s actions or omissions constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) Mr.(2) Mr. constitutednegligent negligentand and intentional infliction of emotional distress; Cardenas’s actions or or omissions omissions constituted constituted fraud or Cardenas’s actions or suppression suppression of of the the truth; truth;(3) (3) Mr. a fee forfor hishis legal services in the automobile Mr. Cardenas Cardenas was wasnot notentitled entitledtoto a fee legal services in the automobile accident matter due to fraud fraudor orsuppression suppressionof ofthe thetruth; truth;and and(4) (4)Ms. Ms.Hornot Hornotwas was entitled from Mr.Mr. Cardenas, as as well as as to the fullfull settlement entitled to toreturn returnofofher herfile file from Cardenas, well to the settlement proceeds from the automobile proceeds from automobile accident accident matter.5 matter.5 Mr. Mr. Cardenas Cardenas filed filedaa cross-claim cross-claim seeking his attorneys’ fees for his services services in in the the automobile automobile accident matter, and fees for seeking damages from Ms.Ms. Hornot’s allegations in herin her damages for fordefamation defamationarising arising from Hornot’s allegations 6 lawsuit August 22, 2006, the trial a pretrial lawsuitagainst againsthim.6 him.On On August 22, 2006, thecourt trialheld court held a pretrial

4

4 5 5 6 6

Petition Petition for forDamages, Damages, R. R. Vol. Vol. 1, 1, pp. pp. 3-5. 3-5. Petition Petition for forDamages, Damages, at at ¶¶ ¶¶3-9, 3-9, R. R. Vol. Vol. 1, 1, pp. pp. 3-4. 3-4. Answer and Reconventional Demand, R. Vol. 1, Answer and Reconventional Demand, R. Vol. 1, pp. pp.10-12. 10-12.

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

conference bench trial forfor January 11 11 andand 12, 12, conference and set this this matter matterfor foraatwo-day two-day bench trial January 2007.7 2007.7

Approximately prior to the trial trial date,date, Ms. Hornot contacted Approximatelysix sixweeks weeks prior to the Ms. Hornot contacted Kevin representing herher Kevin Stockstill, Stockstill,an anattorney attorneyininLafayette, Lafayette,Louisiana, Louisiana,regarding regarding representing at the trial. trial. She with Mr. he indicated indicated his She met with Mr.Stockstill Stockstillon onDecember December5, 5, 2006, 2006, and he

interest her8; Hornot communicated with Mr. Stockstill interest ininrepresenting representing her8Ms. ; Ms. Hornot communicated with Mr. Stockstill repeatedly thethe month of December 20062006 regarding the possible repeatedly throughout throughout month of December regarding the possible representation.9 On January January 5, 5,2007, 2007,a aFriday Fridaysix sixdays daysbefore beforetrial, trial,Mr. Mr. Stockstill’s representation.9 On

assistant informed Ms. Stockstill would be unable to represent assistant informed Ms.Hornot Hornotthat thatMr. Mr. Stockstill would be unable to represent 10 her atattrial duedue to personal issues issues he was he encountering.10 Ms. Hornot trial to personal was encountering. Ms. Hornot

immediately counsel to to represent herher at the trial, andand immediatelycontinued continuedher hersearch searchforfor counsel represent at the trial, contacted Christopher Christopher Alexander 9, meeting meeting with with him Alexander on on January January 8 or 9, him on on January January 11 9, 2007. 2007.11 Mr.Alexander Alexandermet met with with Ms. Mr. Ms. Hornot Hornotaasecond secondtime timeon onJanuary January10, 10,the the

day before retainer before trial trialwas wasset; set;at atthis thissecond secondmeeting, meeting,he heaccepted acceptedaa$10,000.00 $10,000.00 retainer

check, and to to Continue Trial.12 Mr. check, and prepared and and signed signed aa Motion MotiontotoEnroll Enroll and Continue Trial.12 Mr. Alexander, to to filefile thethe motion untiluntil he had an an Alexander, however, however,advised advisedMs. Ms.Hornot Hornotnot not motion he had opportunity toto settle the case.13 opportunitytotocontact contactMr. Mr.Cardenas’s Cardenas’scounsel counseltotoattempt attempt settle the case.13

The next of the trial,trial, Ms. Ms. Hornot spokespoke with Mr. next day, day,on onthe themorning morning of the Hornot with Mr. Alexander and he he indicated he was reachtoMr. Alexandervia viatelephone, telephone, and indicated he still wastrying still to trying reach Mr. Cardenas’s counsel regarding regarding settlement; Mr. Mr. Alexander Cardenas’s counsel Alexanderdid didnot notindicate indicatethat thathehe

7

7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13

Pretrial Vol. 1, Pretrial Order, Order, R. Vol. 1, pp. pp. 75-82. 75-82. R. Vol. 2, R. Vol. 2, p. p. 119. 119.

R. Envelope 1, H-1. R. Vol. 2, R. Vol. 2, p. p. 119. 119. R. Vol. 2, pp. R. Vol. 2, pp. 119, 119, 122. 122. R. Vol. 2, R. Vol. 2, pp. pp. 122-23. 122-23. R. Vol. 2, R. Vol. 2, pp. pp. 122-23. 122-23.

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27 14 would be be attending the trial morning.14 Nevertheless, Mr. wouldnot not attending thelater trialthat later that morning. Nevertheless, Mr.

Alexander forfor trial. At that point, Mr. Cardenas’s Alexander failed failedtotoshow showup upatatthe thecourt court trial. At that point, Mr. Cardenas’s counsel informed and Ms.Ms. Hornot thatthat he had spoken with Mr. informedthe thetrial trialcourt court and Hornot he had spoken with Mr. Alexander would notnot be attending the the trial trial and would Alexander and andthat thatMr. Mr.Alexander Alexander would be attending and would not in the Mr.15Cardenas’s counselcounsel concluded, “So not be beenrolling enrolling in matter.15 the matter. Mr. Cardenas’s concluded, “So somebody is not being up front you [the front with withthis thisCourt Courtatatthis thispoint, point,and andI invite I invite you [the trial trial judge] judge]to toask ask Mr. Mr.Alexander Alexanderwhat whathe hetold toldMs. Ms.Hornot Hornotthis thismorning.”16 morning.”16 The trial judge retired to his trialcourt courtthen thenrecessed recessedand andthe thetrial trial judge retired to chambers his chambers and called Alexander via telephone and held ex parte, calledMr. Mr. Alexander via telephone andanheld an exoff-record parte, off-record 17 conversation about representation of Ms. Hornot.17 When the judge conversation with withhim him about representation of Ms. Hornot. When the judge

returned that hehe had spoken with Mr.Mr. returned to tothe thecourtroom, courtroom,he henoted notedononthe therecord record that had spoken with Alexander had indicated he had informed Ms. Hornot Alexander and andthat thatMr. Mr.Alexander Alexander had indicated he had informed Ms. Hornot and Mr. would not Mr. Cardenas’s Cardenas’s counsel that he had determined he would notbe be enrolling enrollinginin 18 the matter in the trialtrial of this matter.18 Mr. matter and and had hadno nointention intentionofofparticipating participating in the of this matter. Mr.

Alexander appeared in court to discuss the circumstances of his Alexandernever never appeared in court to discuss the circumstances of his representation of immediately sought thethe of Ms. Ms. Hornot Hornoton onthe therecord. record.Ms. Ms.Hornot Hornot immediately sought court’s take thethe stand to testify as to her attempts to retain to retain court’s permission permissionto to take stand to testify as to her attempts representation for Alexander. The for trial, trial,and andspecifically specificallyher herdiscussions discussionswith withMr. Mr. Alexander. The trial predisposition to not believe Ms. Ms. Hornot’s testimony, trial judge judgeindicated indicatedhishis predisposition to not believe Hornot’s testimony, responding, “I’d “I’dbe be very verycautious cautiousabout abouttaking takingthe thestand, stand,Ms. Ms.Hornot.”19 Hornot.”19

14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19

R. Vol. 2, R. Vol. 2, p. p. 120. 120. R. Vol. 2, R. Vol. 2, p. p. 121. 121. R. Vol. 2, R. Vol. 2, p. p. 121. 121. R. Vol. 2, p. 121-22. R. Vol. 2, p. 121-22. R. Vol. 2, R. Vol. 2, p. p. 121-22. 121-22. R. Vol. 2, p. 122. R. Vol. 2, p. 122.

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

Ms. Hornot engaged a colloquy regarding Mr.Mr. Hornotand andthe thetrial trialjudge judgethen then engagedinin a colloquy regarding Alexander’s concluding with Alexander’s absence, absence, concluding withMs. Ms.Hornot’s Hornot’srequest requestfor fora acontinuance continuanceofof the trial: trial: Ms. I understood thatthat he was goinggoing to be to here Ms. Hornot: Hornot:…… I understood he was bethis here this morning. represent myself, Your Honor. I I morning. IIam amnot notininaaposition positiontoto represent myself, Your Honor. was not hehe was notnot going to betohere. I gaveI him notaware awarethat that was going be here. gavea him a retainer check. He did did not not ask ask me me to to sign sign aa contract, contract, but but IIgave gave him him the retainer check, which he accepted. accepted.II am am literally literally caught between check, which a rock place. …… I’d I’d like like to proffer into evidence in rock and anda ahard hard place. to proffer into evidence in support of my verbal motion for continuance this morning copies support of my verbal motion for continuance this morning copies of the e-mails e-mails that that II sent sent to to Kevin KevinStockstill Stockstill….20 ….20 This motion motion to continue thethe trial.trial. motionfor forcontinuance continuancewas wasMs. Ms.Hornot’s Hornot’sfirst first motion to continue She in rambling fashion, her grounds for continuance, She continued continuedtotourge, urge, in rambling fashion, her grounds for continuance, proffering communications withwith Mr. Mr. Stockstill, as well theas the profferingevidence evidenceofofher her communications Stockstill, as as well signed, albeit and forfor continuance thatthat Mr.Mr. Alexander albeit un-filed, un-filed,motion motiontotoenroll enroll and continuance Alexander had provided to to continue.22 providedtotoher.21 her.21 The trial trialcourt courtdenied deniedthe themotion motion continue.22The Thetrial trial court filefile anan emergency court then then denied deniedaa stay stay of ofthe theproceedings proceedingsfor forMs. Ms.Hornot Hornottoto emergency supervisory appellate court to review the the denial of her supervisory writ writtotothe the appellate court to review denial of continuance her continuance

20 20

R. Vol. 2, R. Vol. 2, p. p. 123-24. 123-24.

21 21

R. Vol. unfocused argument for for continuance Vol. 2, 2,p.p.122-25. 122-25.Ms. Ms.Hornot’s Hornot’s unfocused argument continuance illustrates illustrates how howunsuited unsuitedshe shewas wastotorepresent representherself herselfatattrial, trial,and andher herreliance relianceonon the supposed representation representation by by Mr. Alexander: Alexander: Okay. Your 2626years. Your Honor, Honor,Your YourHonor, Honor,I’ve I’vebeen beenan anattorney attorneyforfor years. I went 1313 years. I’ve been practicing in the wenttotoCatholic Catholicschool schoolforfor years. I’ve been practicing in the Baton Rouge area area for for 26 years. years. II have never made statements about people that I believe are untrue or I’m not or false. I’m not sure sure exactly exactly what’s what’s happening. I had a good-faith belief that Mr. Alexander was going had a good-faith belief that Mr. Alexander was going to be He He did not he me would be not be be here herethis thismorning. morning. didtell notmetell he not would representing me. to to me. II was was under underthe theimpression impressionthat thathehewas wastrying trying work this out with Mr. Saunders. I do not you know, other than work this out with Mr. Saunders. I do not – you know, other than what he’s what Your Your Honor Honorisistelling tellingme, me,I Ido donot notknow knowwhy why he’snot nothere. here. R. Vol. 2, p. 125 125 (emphasis (emphasis added). added). 22 22 R. Vol. 2, p. 132. R. Vol. 2, p. 132.

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

motion.23 Knowing that trial waswas scheduled for two Hornot motion.23 Knowing thatthe the trial scheduled fordays, two Ms. days, Ms. Hornot responded to the denial denial of ofthe thestay stayrequest request by byasking, asking,“Your “YourHonor, Honor,is isthere thereany any way me a acontinuance just until thisthis afternoon to start?” way that that you youwould wouldgrant grant me continuance just until afternoon to start?” The trial “No, ma’am. It is It time get to thisget matter my off my trialjudge judgeresponded, responded, “No, ma’am. is to time this off matter 24 docket.”24 docket.”

After trial, and Ms. Hornot After aa five-minute five-minutebreak, break,the thecourt courtproceeded proceededwith with trial, and Ms. Hornot again pressed the court to to continue continueat atleast least to tothe thenext nextday day(a(adate datethat thatwas wasalso also scheduled for byby explicitly urging the the justice and and fairness for the thetrial), trial),concluding concluding explicitly urging justice fairness issues atthe theheart heartof ofthe theinstant instantpetition petition to this Court Court for issues at for writ writofofcertiorari: certiorari: Ms. Hornot: forward today. I simply cannot. I relied Hornot:……I can’t I can’tgogo forward today. I simply cannot. I relied on the representations made by Mr. Alexander to me in good Mr. Alexander to me in goodfaith. faith. I am not -– The Court: I’mI’m not not revisiting that issue again.again. I’ve I’ve Court:Ms. Ms.Hornot, Hornot, revisiting that issue already told you, even if Mr. Alexander was here and sitting at already told you, even if Mr. Alexander was here and sitting at counsel table and based upon and asking asking this thisCourt Courtfor fora acontinuance continuance based upon his enrollment, enrollment, II would wouldhave havedenied deniedthe themotion motiontotoenroll enrollatatthis thislate late date, and I definitely definitely would wouldnot nothave havegranted grantedaacontinuance continuanceon onthat that ground. ground. I’m I’mthrough throughtalking talkingabout aboutthat. that.Okay? Okay? Ms. Your Honor, I need him with to the to the Ms. Hornot: Hornot:Okay. Okay. Your Honor, I need him respect with respect direct the the cross-exam, and heand has he some my directexam examand and cross-exam, hasof some of my documents, Your Honor. Please. Your Honor, he has my documents, Your Honor. Please. Your Honor, he has my documents. II can’t being prepared. I relied in in can’tgo goforward forwardwithout without being prepared. I relied good faith faith upon upon the the fact fact that that IIgave gave him himthe theretainer. retainer.He Hedid didsign signan an original of the motion to enroll. original of the motion to enroll. The Court: telling me me the the same things over over and over Court:You Youkeep keep telling same things and over again, Ms. Hornot. Hornot. Ms. Hornot: Your Honor, butbut in the of justice, in in Hornot:I Iknow, know, Your Honor, in interest the interest of justice, the interest I’mI’m notnot interest of of fairness, fairness, please please don’t don’tmake makeme mego goforward. forward. prepared to Honor, I cannot gogo forward. I I to go go forward. forward.Truly, Truly,Your Your Honor, I cannot forward. have not have a problem withwith telling the truth. I don’t I don’t not -–I don’t I don’t have a problem telling the truth.

23 23 24 24

R. Vol. 2, R. Vol. 2, p. p. 132. 132. R. Vol. 2, p. 132 132 (emphasis (emphasis added). added).

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

have a problem problem with I cannot actact asas mymy own withtaking takingthe thestand, stand,but but I cannot own attorney, attorney, Your YourHonor.25 Honor.25 The district district court courtrejected rejected Ms. Ms. Hornot’s Hornot’sentreaties entreatiesand andthe thetrial trialcommenced. commenced.That That same to to go go intointo the second scheduled day for trial, same day, day, without withoutneed need the second scheduled day forand trial, and following byby only Ms.Ms. Hornot and and Mr. Cardenas, the district court court followingtestimony testimony only Hornot Mr. Cardenas, the district announced oral that none of Ms. Hornot’s claims oral reasons reasons for forjudgment judgmentfinding finding that none of Ms. Hornot’s claims had merit; were defamatory perper seseas merit; that thatthe theallegations allegationsof ofMs. Ms.Hornot’s Hornot’slawsuit lawsuit were defamatory as to Mr. Mr. Cardenas; Cardenas; that thatMr. Mr.Cardenas Cardenaswas wasentitled entitledtoto$20,000.00 $20,000.00inindamages damagesfrom from the defamation; entitled to full payment fromfrom the auto defamation;that thatMr. Mr.Cardenas Cardenaswas was entitled to full payment the auto accident settlement contingent fee, settlement proceeds proceeds of of aa 17.5-percent contingent fee, plus plus expenses; expenses; and

that despite no no separate motion for sanctions or hearing as to as to that Ms. Ms.Hornot, Hornot, despite separate motion for sanctions or hearing sanctions, was liable $10,000.00 liable for forsanctions sanctionsininthe theamount amountofof $10,000.00under underLouisiana Louisiana Code of Civil Final written written judgment CivilProcedure Procedurearticle article863.26 863.26 Final judgmentwas wasentered enteredby bythe the district districtcourt courton onFebruary February26, 26,2007.27 2007.27

Ms. Hornot Hornotappealed appealed(now (nowrepresented representedby bycounsel) counsel)totothe theLouisiana LouisianaFirst First Circuit Appeal, arguing thatthat the district court’scourt’s failure failure to granttoher CircuitCourt Courtofof Appeal, arguing the district grant her motion manifestly unfair in that it forced Ms. Hornot to motion for forcontinuance continuancewas was manifestly unfair in that it forced Ms. Hornot to move forward to to retain forwardon onaapro prose se basis basis even even though thoughshe she had haddiligently diligentlysought sought retain

25 25 26 26

R. Vol. 2, R. Vol. 2, p. p. 133. 133.

R. Vol. 3, 3, at at pp.pp. 24a-29a. La.La. C.C.P. art.art. 863863 is is Vol. 1, 1, pp. pp.302-08, 302-08,Appendix Appendix 24a-29a. C.C.P. substantively equivalent to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. The Louisiana First Circuit Court of substantively equivalent to Fed. 11. The Louisiana First Circuit Appeal upon finding thatthat the article’s hearing Appeal vacated vacatedthe theaward awardofofsanctions sanctions upon finding the article’s hearing requirement and remanded to the district courtcourt to hold requirementwas wasnot notmet, met, and remanded to the district tosuch holdasuch a hearing. The sanctions sanctions order, order, therefore, is not part part of of the the ruling rulingbefore beforethis thisCourt Court in this issue the district court and its its resolution this petition, petition,though thoughititisisstill stilla alive live issueinin the district court and resolution will willlikely likelybe beimpacted impactedby bythe thedisposition dispositionofofthis thispetition. petition. 27 27 R. Vol. 1, pp. 105-06, Appendix B, at pp. 21a-23a. 105-06, Appendix B, at pp. 21a-23a.

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

hired notnot have hired counsel counsel to to represent representher heratattrial28; trial28; and that that the thetrial trialcourt courtshould should have found found her her lawsuit lawsuittotohave havepresented presenteddefamation defamationininthe theface faceofofatatleast leastaaqualified qualified privilege proceeding.29 privilegeattaching attachingtotoallegations allegationsmade madeinina ajudicial judicial proceeding.29InInarguing arguingthe the unfairness of regard to to thethe motion for for continuance, of the the trial trialcourt’s court’sactions actionswith with regard motion continuance, Ms. Hornot in in Hornot also also argued argued to tothe theCourt CourtofofAppeal Appealthe theapparent apparentbias biasand andhostility hostility the trial The Louisiana Louisiana First Circuit trialjudge’s judge’sdemeanor.30 demeanor.30 The Circuitaffirmed affirmedthese theseportions portions of the and judgment, holding withwith regard to thetomotion the district districtcourt’s court’srulings rulings and judgment, holding regard the motion for was acting within its discretion; andand withwith for continuance continuance that thatthe thedistrict districtcourt court was acting within its discretion; regard to the finding findingofofdefamation defamationper perse se that the district districtcourt courtwas wasnot notwrong wronginin finding basis Ms. Hornot’s allegations against Mr. Mr. findingthat thatthere therewas wasnonofactual factual basisforfor Ms. Hornot’s allegations against Cardenas.31 Afterfull full briefing briefing of onon application for for Cardenas.31 After ofthese theseissues issues by byMs. Ms.Hornot Hornot application writs and review, the the Louisiana Supreme CourtCourt denied writs on writsofofcertiorari certiorari and review, Louisiana Supreme denied writs on September September26, 26,2008.32 2008.32

28 28

Hornot v.v.Cardenas, 1489 (La.(La. App. 1st Cir.), Plaintiff’s Cardenas,No. No.2007 2007CA CA 1489 App. 1st Cir.), Plaintiff’s Application for Application forRehearing, Rehearing,at atp. p.6. 6. 29 29 Appendix AppendixA, A,atatpp. pp.14a-15a. 14a-15a. 30 30 Hornot v.v.Cardenas, 1489 (La.(La. App. 1st Cir.), Plaintiff’s Cardenas,No. No.2007 2007CA CA 1489 App. 1st Cir.), Plaintiff’s Application for Rehearing, at pp. 4-6. Application for Rehearing, at pp. 4-6. 31 31 Appendix AppendixA, A,atatpp. pp.12a, 12a, 15a. 15a. 32 32 Appendix C, at p. 30a. Appendix C, at p. 30a.

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

REASONS REASONS FOR GRANTING GRANTINGTHE THEPETITION PETITION The Louisiana Louisiana First ruling on on thethe merits in this First Circuit CircuitCourt CourtofofAppeal’s Appeal’s ruling merits in this matter, the the district court’scourt’s denial of Ms. Hornot’s for motion for matter, affirming affirming district denial of Ms. motion Hornot’s continuance and affirming of of defamation perper sesebybyMs. affirmingthe thedistrict districtcourt’s court’sfinding finding defamation Ms. Hornot against Mr. Cardenas, presents conflicts Hornot in inher herallegations allegationsininher herlawsuit lawsuit against Mr. Cardenas, presents conflicts with and thethe U.S. Courts of Appeals, and and withdue dueprocess processdecisions decisionsby bythis thisCourt Court and U.S. Courts of Appeals, presents aa significant significant unresolved defamation unresolvedissue issue regarding regardingthe theprivilege privilegefrom from defamation liability liabilitythat thatshould shouldattach attachtotopleadings pleadingsininjudicial judicialproceedings.33 proceedings.33 A.

Review to Resolve a Conflict Between the Louisiana ReviewisisWarranted Warranted to Resolve a Conflict Between the Louisiana Court’s of of thisthis Court andand of the Courts of of Court’s Decision Decisionand andDecisions Decisions Court of U.S. the U.S. Courts Appeals Guarantees Related to Retention Appeals Regarding Regardingthe theConstitutional Constitutional Guarantees Related to Retention of Civil Proceedings. of and and Representation Representationby byHired HiredCounsel Counselinin Civil Proceedings. The right right to to representation representation by byretained retainedcounsel counsel in incivil civilproceedings proceedingshas hasits its

genesis in Court’s decision in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45U.S. (1932). inthis this Court’s decision in Powell v. Alabama, 287 45 (1932). Examining aa Examining specifically specificallythe thequestion questionofofthe theright righttotorepresentation representationbybycounsel counselinin criminal Court observed the due process process foundations foundations of such aa right: right: criminalcase, case, this Court

It any other so so farfar as as wewe It never never has has been been doubted doubtedby bythis thiscourt, court,oror any other know, that notice and hearing are preliminary steps essential to know, that notice and hearing are preliminary steps essential tothe the passing of an enforceable judgment, judgment, and and that thatthey, they,together togetherwith witha a legally legally competent competent tribunal tribunalhaving havingjurisdiction jurisdictionofofthe thecase, case,constitute constitute basic elements elements of the constitutional requirement of due process constitutional requirement of due processofof law. a hearing include? Historically and inand in law. … …What, What,then, then,does does a hearing include? Historically practice, in at least, it has always included the the inour ourown owncountry country at least, it has always included right byby the party right to tothe theaid aidofofcounsel counselwhen whendesired desiredand andprovided provided the party asserting the right. be, inin many cases, right. The The right righttotobe beheard heardwould would be, many cases, of little if itifdid not comprehend the right be heard littleavail avail it did not comprehend the toright to beby heard by counsel. Id. at such a right waswas not not limited to thetocriminal at 68-69. 68-69. Then, Then, clarifying clarifyingthat that such a right limited the criminal context before it, the Powell Powell Court Court held held that, 33 33

See Hicksv.v.Feiock, Feiock,485 485 U.S. 624, 629 (1988) (noting grantofofcertiorari certiorari in in the See Hicks U.S. 624, 629 (1988) (noting grant face of denial court); seeseealso denial of ofreview reviewbybystate statesupreme supreme court); alsoFoucha Fouchav.v.Louisiana, Louisiana, 504 504 U.S. 71, (1992) (1992) (noting (noting grant to to resolve due process issues arising U.S. 71, grantofofcertiorari certiorari resolve due process issues arising from from conduct conduct of of state state civil civil proceedings). proceedings).

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

[i]f or criminal, a state or federal court were [i]fininany anycase, case,civil civil or criminal, a state or federal court were arbitrarily a party by by counsel, employed by and arbitrarilytotorefuse refusetotohear hear a party counsel, employed by and appearing for him, it reasonably may not be doubted that such a a appearing for him, it reasonably may not be doubted that such refusal a denial of aof hearing, and, therefore of due of due refusal would wouldbebe a denial a hearing, and, therefore process in the constitutional constitutional sense. process in sense. Id. at 69 (emphasis (emphasis added).

This Court specifically applied this holding as a basis Courthas has specifically applied this holding as to a find basis to find constitutional of of a motion for for continuance to allow retained constitutionalerror errorininthe thedenial denial a motion continuance to allow retained counsel to In In Reynolds v. Cochran, 365365 U.S. 525525 (1961), a a to be be present presentinincourt. court. Reynolds v. Cochran, U.S. (1961), habeas petitioner challenged his confinement habeas petitioner confinement in in Florida Floridaprison prisonunder underthat thatstate’s state’s “second-offender” at at 529. After serving prison sentences for two “second-offender”statute. statute.Id.Id. 529. After serving prison sentences for two unrelated to to court forfor unrelated convictions, convictions,the thepetitioner petitionerhad hadbeen beenarrested arrestedand andbrought brought court trial convictions. trial under underthe thesecond-offender second-offenderstatute statuteon onthe thebasis basisofofthe thetwo twoprior prior convictions. The petitioner petitioner informed informedthe thecourt courtthat thathis hiscounsel counselhad hadbeen been contacted contacted and and would would arrive morning on on the the day day of the arrive later laterininthe the morning oftrial; the the trial;trial thecourt trialresponded, court responded, “[Y]ou toto a aman “[Y]oudo donot notneed needcounsel counselininthis thiscase. case. … … No Nopoint pointinincalling callinga aDoctor Doctor man already While the the petitioner raisedraised issuesissues in his habeas petitionpetition already dead.” dead.”Id.Id. While petitioner in his habeas regarding andand ex post facto prohibitions, this Court instead regardingdouble doublejeopardy jeopardy ex post facto prohibitions, this Court instead reversed the denial of relief of habeas habeas relief

for petitioner an an opportunity to prove for aa hearing hearing in inorder ordertotoafford afford petitioner opportunity to prove his allegations with - that hehe withregard regardtotoanother anotherconstitutional constitutionalclaim claim – that was deprived refusal of the trial trial judgejudge to deprivedofofdue dueprocess processbybythe the refusal of the to grant that hehe might have thethe grant his his motion motionfor fora acontinuance continuanceininorder order that might have assistance of the counsel he he had had retained retained in in the proceedings against him. him. Id. at The Reynolds Court based this holding in the in the at530 530(emphasis (emphasisadded). added). The Reynolds Court based this holding pronouncement pronouncementfrom fromPowell. Powell.Id. Id.at at530-31. 530-31.

Several yearslater, later, this this Court Court moved its right-to-retained-counsel Several years right-to-retained-counselanalysis analysis expressly sphere, in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. In expressly into intothe thecivil civil sphere, in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 254 U.S.(1970). 254 (1970). In

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

Goldberg, thisCourt Court held held that that administrative administrative proceedings Goldberg, this proceedings by byNew NewYork Yorkstate stateand and city remove an an AFDC-recipient from from the benefits program must must city officials officialstoto remove AFDC-recipient the benefits program include “the recipient must include aa pre-termination pre-terminationhearing hearingand andthat, that,atatsuch suchhearing, hearing, “the recipient must be allowed allowed to to retain retainan anattorney attorneyif ifhehesosodesires. desires.Counsel Counselcan canhelp helpdelineate delineatethe the issues, in an orderly manner, conduct cross-crossissues, present the thefactual factualcontentions contentions in an orderly manner, conduct examination, examination, and and generally generally safeguard safeguard the the interests interests of ofthe therecipient.” recipient.”Id. Id.atat270-71 270-71 (citing (citingPowell, Powell, supra). supra).

By the time in in Maness time of ofthis thisCourt’s Court’sopinion opinion Manessv.v.Meyers, Meyers,419 419U.S. U.S.449 449 (1975), (1975),

“[t]he a acivil proceeding” hadhad become “[t]heright righttotobe beadvised advisedbybyretained retainedcounsel counselinin civil proceeding” become a concisely articulated members of of thethe Court. See id.id. at at 472 articulatedright rightrecognized recognizedbyby members Court. See 472 (Stewart, J., proceeding regarding an order of of J., concurring). concurring).InInManess, Maness,a acivil civil proceeding regarding an order contempt Justice Stewart concurred in the contempt levied leviedagainst againstananattorney, attorney, Justice Stewart concurred in Court’s the Court’s reversal of the contempt order, noting thatthat “[t]he ‘right‘right to to of judgment judgmentupholding upholding the contempt order, noting “[t]he be heard by denying thethe right to have counsel by counsel’ counsel’ isisfrustrated frustratedequally equallybyby denying right to have counsel present during trial trial as present during as by by preventing preventingcounsel, counsel,once once in in the the courtroom, courtroom,from fromgiving giving good-faith good-faith professional professional advice advice to to his his client.” client.”Id. Id.(emphasis (emphasis added). added). The federal Courts of of Appeals Appeals have have also also followed followedPowell’s Powell’sdictate dictatethat thatthe the denial to be by retained counsel, including in civil in civil denial ofofthe theright right to represented be represented by retained counsel, including proceedings, is aa denial due process. In In a case very similar to to denialofofconstitutional constitutional due process. a case very similar Ms. Hornot’s Court of of Appeals examined a case Hornot’ssituation, situation,the theU.S. U.S.Sixth SixthCircuit Circuit Court Appeals examined a case where expressing overt hostility to thetoplaintiff, allowedallowed a where the thedistrict districtcourt, court, expressing overt hostility the plaintiff, a plaintiff’s twotwo daysdays before trial was the the plaintiff’scounsel counseltotowithdraw withdraw before trial set, wasthen set, denied then denied plaintiff’s a twenty-five-day continuance to obtain new counsel, plaintiff’srequest requestforfor a twenty-five-day continuance to obtain new counsel, forcing to to proceed propro se.se. Anderson forcingthe theplaintiff plaintiff proceed Andersonv.v.Sheppard, Sheppard,856 856F.2d F.2d741, 741, 742-45 742-45

(6th Cir. that, “[w]hile casecase law law in the is Cir.1988). 1988). The TheAnderson Andersoncourt courtheld held that, “[w]hile inarea the area is

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

scarce, litigant to betorepresented by retained counsel,counsel, if scarce, the right rightofofa civil a civil litigant be represented by retained if desired, clearly recognized.” Id. at Id. 747.atSpecifically regarding the desired, isisnow now clearly recognized.” 747. Specifically regarding the interplay retained counsel at at trial andand thethe discretion interplayofofthe thedue dueprocess processright righttoto retained counsel trial discretion normally normallyaccorded accorded to to aa motion motion for forcontinuance, continuance, the the Sixth Sixth Circuit Circuitheld, held, [T]he court abused its discretion in failingintofailing grant to grant [T]he district district court abused its discretion [plaintiff] a reasonable time to obtain counsel. While thethe matter of of [plaintiff] a reasonable time to obtain counsel. While matter continuance is traditionally thethe discretion of the trialtrial judge, traditionallywithin within discretion of the judge, a myopic myopic insistence insistence upon upon expeditiousness expeditiousness in inthe theface faceof ofjustifiable justifiable request for to defend withwith counsel an an for delay delaycan canrender renderthe theright right to defend counsel empty formality. formality. Id. at marks, andand internal ellipsis in original at 748 748 (citations, (citations,internal internalquotation quotation marks, internal ellipsis in original omitted) omitted) (emphasis (emphasis added). The District District of and thethe Fifth Circuit have alsoalso heldheld thatthat ofColumbia ColumbiaCircuit Circuit and Fifth Circuit have the right guaranteed component of due rightto toretained retainedcounsel counselisisaaconstitutionally constitutionally guaranteed component of due process. In American 746 F.2d F.2d 865 865 (D.C. (D.C. Cir. Cir. 1984), process. In American Airways Airways Charters, Charters, Inc. Inc. v. v. Regan, Regan, 746 1984),

then-Judge thatthat a statutory requirement for obtaining a then-Judge Ginsburg Ginsburgwrote wrote a statutory requirement for obtaining a government counsel would be be an an invalid “attempt to to government license license prior priortotoobtaining obtaining counsel would invalid “attempt deny litigant” as recognized in Powell. Id. at Id. 873.atIn873. Texas deny counsel counseltotoa acivil civil litigant” as recognized in Powell. In Texas Catastrophe Property Insurance InsuranceAssociation Associationv.v.Morales, Morales,975 975F.2d F.2d1178 1178(5th (5th Cir. Cir. 1992), Catastrophe Property 1992),

the Fifth that a Texas statute requiring a pool of insurers to relyto rely FifthCircuit Circuitheld held that a Texas statute requiring a pool of insurers exclusively onon thethe state’s attorney general violated “a “a exclusively for forlegal legalrepresentation representation state’s attorney general violated constitutionally counsel civil matters, [a [a right] constitutionallyguaranteed guaranteedright righttotoretain retainhired hired counselinin civil matters, right] grounded grounded in inthe theFourteenth FourteenthAmendment Amendmentdue dueprocess processclause.” clause.”Id. Id.at at1180. 1180.

The denial of continuance in in this matter, upheld of Ms. Ms. Hornot’s Hornot’smotion motionforfor continuance this matter, upheld by the Louisiana directly conflicts with thisthis lineline of of Louisiana First First Circuit CircuitCourt CourtofofAppeal, Appeal, directly conflicts with decisions from this this Court Court and and the the federal federal Courts Courtsof ofAppeals Appealsand andhas has resulted resultedin inaa patent of Ms. Hornot’s due process rights under theunder Fourteenth patent denial denial of Ms. Hornot’s due process rights the Fourteenth

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

Amendment. within the the confines of the to retained Amendment.This Thismatter matterfalls fallsfully fully within confines of right the right to retained counsel as that in this Court’s Reynolds that right righthas hasbeen beendeveloped, developed,particularly particularly in this Court’s Reynolds decision and aswith with and the the Sixth Sixth Circuit’s Circuit’sAnderson Anderson decision. decision. In Ineach each of of those those cases, cases, as

Ms. Hornot, ofof a motion forfor brief continuance in order to to Hornot,the thetrial trialcourt’s court’sdenial denial a motion brief continuance in order allow allow thethe litigant the the opportunity to to allow retained retainedcounsel counseltotobe bepresent presentorortoto allow litigant opportunity retain thethe litigant being compelled to proceed pro se, retain new newcounsel counselresulted resultedinin litigant being compelled to proceed pro se, with In In direct withclearly clearlyadverse adverse impact impacton onthe theoutcome outcomeof ofthe theunderlying underlyinglitigation. litigation. direct conflict conflict with withthe theAnderson Anderson court’s handling handling of ofthe the issue issue of of a trial trial court’s court’s discretion discretion in First Circuit in the the face face of of the the Fourteenth FourteenthAmendment Amendmentguarantee, guarantee,the theLouisiana Louisiana First Circuit here dispensed with arguments purely on the that that a “trial withMs. Ms.Hornot’s Hornot’s arguments purely on basis the basis a “trial court a motion forfor continuance, andand court has has great discretion discretioniningranting grantingorordenying denying a motion continuance, its ruling onon appeal in in thethe absence ofof anan rulingwill willnot notbebedisturbed disturbed appeal absenceofofa aclear clearshowing showing abuse abuse of discretion.”34 discretion.”34

Indeed, Ms. is is more egregious in some respects than Ms. Hornot’s Hornot’ssituation situation more egregious in some respects than each dispute thatthat Ms. Ms. Hornot had retained each of of those thosecases. cases. Here, Here,there thereisisnono dispute Hornot had retained counsel upon search, thethe trial court did did not even upon an an extended extendedand anddiligent diligent search,but but trial court not even require require that that counsel counsel to to appear appear in in court courtto toexplain explainon onthe therecord recordthe thereason reasonfor forhis his non-participation Mr. Alexander’s word in an non-participationininthe thetrial, trial,instead insteadtaking taking Mr. Alexander’s word in ex an parte, ex parte, non-sworn ofof anan officer of the court, Ms.Ms. non-sworn telephone telephoneconversation conversationover overthe theword word officer of the court, Hornot, prepared to to take thethe stand. Hornot, appearing appearingininopen opencourt, court,ononthe therecord, record,and and prepared take stand. While constitutional violation in the denial of of While the the Sixth Sixth Circuit Circuitwas wasquick quicktotofind find constitutional violation in the denial a twenty-five-day twenty-five-day continuance of of counsel two continuanceininthe thecircumstance circumstanceofofwithdrawal withdrawal counsel two days before trial court denied continuance for even trialininAnderson, Anderson,here herethe thetrial trial court denied continuance for even

34 34

Appendix Appendix A, A, at at 12a. 12a.

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

part retained counsel to not appear on the part of of one one day daywhere wherethe thecourt courtallowed allowed retained counsel to not appear on the morning the trial court for for thethe denied morning of oftrial. trial.And Andhere, here,the thereason reasonproffered profferedbyby the trial court denied continuance does not stand less than stand up up to toeven evenfacial facialscrutiny, scrutiny,asasthe thetrial trialtook took less than one day, but but had had been been scheduled scheduled on on the the court’s court’sschedule schedulefor fortwo twodays, days,showing showing that the partial-day partial-daycontinuance continuancewould wouldhave havehad hadno noimpact impactononthe thecourt’s court’sability ability to get the case off its its docket. case off

Accordingly, anan ideal opportunity for this to Accordingly,this thiscase casepresents presents ideal opportunity forCourt this Court to resolve aa conflict conflict between the Louisiana court court and and its its own owndecisions decisions and andthose those of of the federal federal Courts Courtsof ofAppeals. Appeals.U.S. U.S.S. S. Ct. Ct. Rule Rule 10(b), 10(b), (c). B.

Review to Resolve a Conflict Between the Louisiana ReviewisisWarranted Warranted to Resolve a Conflict Between the Louisiana Court’s Decision and Decisions of this Court and of the U.S. Courts of of Court’s Decision and Decisions of this Court and of the U.S. Courts Appeals Guarantee to atoNon-Hostile and and Appeals Regarding Regardingthe theConstitutional Constitutional Guarantee a Non-Hostile Fair Tribunal. Tribunal. Due process process requires a fair and and non-hostile non-hostiletribunal. tribunal.InInMarshall Marshallv.v.Jerrico, Jerrico,

Inc., held thatthat the federal statutory regimeregime Inc., 446 446 U.S. 238 238 (1980), (1980), this thisCourt Court held the federal statutory regarding of of civilcivil penalties under the Fair regarding assessment assessment and and distribution distribution penalties under the Labor Fair Labor Standards Act notnot create an impermissible conflictconflict of interest the for the Actdid did create an impermissible of for interest adjudicating at at issue. In In arriving at this holding, however, adjudicatingadministrative administrativebody body issue. arriving at this holding, however, the Marshall setset outout the the duedue process-derived framework bearingbearing the MarshallCourt Court process-derived framework the neutrality neutralityrequirement requirementfor foradjudicative adjudicativeproceedings: proceedings: The Due a person to an and and DueProcess ProcessClause Clauseentitles entitles a person to impartial an impartial disinterested in both civil and criminal cases. This disinterestedtribunal tribunal in both civil and criminal cases. This requirement in in adjudicative proceedings safeguards requirement of ofneutrality neutrality adjudicative proceedings safeguards the two central concerns of procedural due process, the prevention two central concerns of procedural due process, the prevention of unjustified or or mistaken deprivations and the promotion of unjustified mistaken deprivations and the promotion of participation andand dialogue by affected individuals in the participation dialogue by affected individuals in the decisionmaking TheThe neutrality requirement helps decisionmakingprocess. process. neutrality requirement helps guarantee that or or property will not taken on theon the thatlife, life,liberty, liberty, property willbe not be taken basis of an an erroneous erroneous or or distorted distorted conception of the facts or or the law. basis of At appearance and reality of of At the thesame same time, time,ititpreserves preservesboth boththe the appearance and reality fairness, feeling, so important to a popular fairness, “generating “generatingthe the feeling, so important to a popular government, …… by by ensuring thatthat no no government, that thatjustice justicehas hasbeen beendone,” done,” ensuring

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

person bebe deprived of hisofinterests in the absence of a person will will deprived his interests in the absence of a proceeding hishis case assurance that proceeding in inwhich whichhehemay maypresent present casewith with assurance that the arbiter is not predisposed to find against him. The requirement arbiter is not predisposed to find against him. The requirement of neutrality neutralityhas has been been jealously guarded by by this this Court. Court. Id. at 242 242 (quoting (quotingJoint JointAnti-Fascist Anti-FascistRefugee Refugee Committee Committee v. McGrath, 341 341 U.S. U.S. 123, 123,

172 (1951)(Frankfurter, (Frankfurter, J., J.,concurring)). concurring)). 172 (1951)

The Sixth Circuit’s that thisthis constitutional Circuit’sAnderson Andersonopinion opinionrecognized recognized that constitutional requirement neutrality extended to prohibit comments by theby trial requirementofofjudicial judicial neutrality extended to prohibit comments the trial judge exhibiting to to thethe claims of the private litigants exhibitingpre-judgment pre-judgmentand andhostility hostility claims of the private litigants before it. Anderson, during the colloquy between the the it.856 856F.2d F.2datat746-47. 746-47.InIn Anderson, during the colloquy between plaintiff judge regarding the the denial of a of continuance to allow the the plaintiffand andthe thetrial trial judge regarding denial a continuance to allow plaintiff plaintifftotoretain retainnew newcounsel, counsel,the thetrial trialjudge judgemade madeseveral severalcomments commentsindicating indicating his hostility, the plaintiff’s claims, andand his his desire to just get get hostility,his hispre-judgment pre-judgmentofof the plaintiff’s claims, desire to just the done: the case case done:

“If I would start thethe trialtrial of this casecase tomorrow “IfI Ihad hadmy mydruthers druthers I would start of this tomorrow morning, because another case I’mI’m trying.” … … morning,but butI can’t I can’t becauseI have I have another case trying.” “The it [the “The odds odds are are against you, you you know knowthat, that,don’t don’tyou?” you?”……“If“If it [the first have sent you down first trial] trial]had hadgone gonetotothe thejury, jury,the thejury jurywould would have sent you down the tube. You got in this case, in my judgment, got aa second second chance chance in case, in judgment, on on a technicality.” technicality.” … “You’re gambling here, you’re shooting craps.” … “You’re gambling here, you’re shooting craps.” Id. at 743-44. The court court held that, thethe open hostility 743-44. The that, “when “whenaatrial trialjudge judgeexhibits exhibits open hostility and bias of aofjudicial proceeding as was here, ithere, it bias atatthe thebeginning beginning a judicial proceeding as exhibited was exhibited follows follows that thatthe thejudgment judgmententered enteredtherein thereinmust mustbe bereversed.” reversed.”Id. Id.at at 747. 747.

Here, the similar open hostility to Ms. and and the trial trialjudge judgeexhibited exhibited similar open hostility to Hornot Ms. Hornot her claim; hostility waswas expressed at the outsetoutset claim;as aswith withAnderson, Anderson,this this hostility expressed at trial’s the trial’s during duringcolloquy colloquyregarding regardingthe theneed needfor forretained retainedcounsel counseltotobebepresent presentororfor fornew new counsel to be judge here expressly called intointo be allowed allowedtotobe beretained. retained.The Thetrial trial judge here expressly called question Ms. when, after hishis ex parte telephone conversation Ms. Hornot’s Hornot’sveracity veracity when, after ex parte telephone conversation with hehe cutcut offoff Ms.Ms. Hornot’s offeroffer to take the stand to provide withMr. Mr.Anderson, Anderson, Hornot’s to take the stand to provide

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

sworn bebe very sworn testimony testimonyas as to to her her efforts efforts to toretain retainMr. Mr.Alexander Alexanderbybystating, stating,“I’d “I’d very cautious about taking trial judge taking the the stand, stand, Ms. Ms. Hornot.”35 Hornot.”35 The trial judge then then engaged engaged in in aa back-and-forth Alexander’s position back-and-forth with withMs. Ms.Hornot, Hornot,essentially essentiallyadvocating advocatingMr. Mr. Alexander’s position on an issue of Ms. Mr. Alexander Ms. Hornot’s Hornot’sdue dueprocess processrights rightsand andeven eventhough though Mr. Alexander never sought an an on-record explanation of hisofown: no has no soughttotoprovide provide on-record explanation his “[He] own: has “[He] 36 intention youyou in connection with this Despite the intentionofofrepresenting representing in connection withmatter.”36 this matter.” Despite the

proffered was prepared to give on the proffered evidence evidenceand andthe thetestimony testimonyMs. Ms.Hornot Hornot was prepared to give on the stand on the issue issue of her her diligence diligencein inseeking seekingand andretaining retainingcounsel counseltotorepresent represent her at onon hishis ex parte communication withwith Mr. Alexander the the at trial, trial,still stillrelying relying ex parte communication Mr. Alexander trial trial judge judge essentially essentially rolled rolledover overthe thefacts factson onthe therecord recordtotoplace placethe theentire entireblame blame for of of counsel on on Ms.Ms. Hornot: “You“You had ample time iftime you if you for Ms. Ms.Hornot’s Hornot’slack lack counsel Hornot: had ample chose to do so to that you waited chose to to obtain obtaincounsel counseltotorepresent representyou, you,and andthe thefact fact that you waited until of of nono fault of any partyparty but yourself, Ms. Ms. untilDecember Decemberand andnow nowJanuary Januaryis is fault of any but yourself, Hornot.”37 The trial trial judge Hornot down when she she triedtried to avail Hornot.”37 The judgeflatly flatlyshut shutMs. Ms. Hornot down when to avail herself of remedies stay remedies short short of ofaalonger-term longer-termcontinuance, continuance,seeking seekingfirst firsta abrief brief stay while Louisiana First Circuit, then seeking a a while she she took tookan anemergency emergencywrit writtotothe the Louisiana First Circuit, then seeking continuance within within the thescheduled scheduledtrial trialperiod, period,totolater laterthat thatsame sameafternoon: afternoon:“You “You can take take aa writ, writ, but I’m toto take I’m not notgoing goingto tostay staythis thistrial. trial.I’m I’mnot notstaying stayingthe thetrial trial take a writ.” writ.” (Regarding is is time to to getget this (Regardingthe therequest requestfor foraabrief briefstay). stay).“No, “No,ma’am. ma’am.It It time this matter off a continuance to to that same off of ofmy mydocket.” docket.”(Regarding (Regardingthe therequest requestforfor a continuance that same 38 afternoon).38 afternoon).

35 35 36 36 37 37 38 38

R. Vol. 2, R. Vol. 2, p. p. 122. 122. R. Vol. 2, p. 123. R. Vol. 2, p. 123. R. Vol. 2, R. Vol. 2, p. p. 131. 131. R. Vol. 2, p. 132. R. Vol. 2, p. 132.

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

Intertwined thethe due process violation in the court’s failurefailure to Intertwinedwith with due process violation in trial the trial court’s to grant the to to proceed to to the continuance continuance and and the the resulting resultingcompulsion compulsionofofMs. Ms.Hornot Hornot proceed trial trial without withoutretained retainedcounsel counselisisthe theindependent independentdue dueprocess processviolation violationevident evidentinin the trial andand apparent pre-judgment of herofveracity and her trialjudge’s judge’shostility hostility apparent pre-judgment her veracity and her claims. In the face of the open hostility hostility and andbias, bias, the the result result-–aacomplete completedenial denialofof Ms. Hornot’s ofof thethe relief requested by by herher opponent on his Hornot’sclaims, claims,aafull fullgrant grant relief requested opponent on his cross-claim, and and an an order order of sanctions against against Ms. Ms. Hornot Hornot -–isis subject subject to to doubt doubtas as to whether, has been done.” Marshall, 446446 U.S.U.S. at 242. To the whether,indeed, indeed,“justice “justice has been done.” Marshall, at 242. To the extent this with thisthis Court’s decision in Marshall and and the the this doubt doubtruns runsininconflict conflict with Court’s decision in Marshall Sixth Circuit’s in Anderson, granting of thisofpetition will provide Circuit’sdecision decision in Anderson, granting this petition will provide opportunity U.S. opportunityfor forthis thisCourt Courttotoresolve resolvethat thatconflict. conflict. U.S.S.S.Ct. Ct.Rule Rule10(b), 10(b),(c). (c). More More importantly, thethe extent this Court has nothas yet expressly extended its importantly,to to extent this Court not yet expressly extended its neutrality-of-adjudication to to thethe situation of judicial hostility, this case neutrality-of-adjudicationholdings holdings situation of judicial hostility, this case would vehicle to explore the the efficacy of doing so. U.S. S. Ct. wouldprovide providethe theideal ideal vehicle to explore efficacy of doing so. U.S. S. Ct. Rule Rule 10(c). 10(c).

C.

Review to Resolve Whether the Firstthe Amendment ReviewisisWarranted Warranted to Resolve Whether First Amendment Requires From Defamation LiabilityLiability for Pleadings in RequiresaaPrivilege Privilege From Defamation for Pleadings in Judicial Proceedings, and, if so, to Determine the Minimum Protections Judicial Proceedings, and, if so, to Determine the Minimum Protections of Privilege. of Such a Privilege. The damages damages awarded awarded against against Ms. Ms. Hornot Hornot in this trial this matter matter based based on the trial

court’s of defamation per se basedbased entirely on Ms. on Hornot’s court’s finding finding of defamation perwere se were entirely Ms. Hornot’s allegations against Mr. Mr. Cardenas. The The Louisiana First Circuit allegations ininher herlawsuit lawsuit against Cardenas. Louisiana First Circuit rejected the of aofprivilege to protect Ms. Hornot’s speech in speech in theapplication application a privilege to protect Ms. Hornot’s allegations made in cannot say in pleadings pleadings in injudicial judicialproceedings, proceedings,holding, holding,“[W]e “[W]e cannot say that court’s finding that there was no factual basis forbasis any of that the thetrial trial court’s finding that there was no factual forthe any of the

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27 39 allegations Hornot waswas wrong.”39 The Louisiana First Circuit allegations made madebybyMs. Ms. Hornot wrong.” The Louisiana First Circuit

articulated privilege ititwas articulated the the scope scope of the privilege wasexamining examiningas aswhether whetherthe theallegations allegations Ms. Hornot Hornot made made were were “based “based on on her good good faith, faith, reasonable reasonable belief that they were true or or made without withoutmalice.”40 malice.”40 In v. LaHue, LaHue,460 460U.S. U.S.325 325(1983), (1983),this thisCourt Courtmade madeclear clearthat, that, under under In Briscoe Briscoe v.

either or the “American Rule,”Rule,” statements in judicial either the the “English “EnglishRule” Rule” or the “American statements in judicial proceedings were subject subject to to an an absolute absolute privilege: privilege:

The immunity subsequent damages immunityofofparties partiesand andwitnesses witnessesfrom from subsequent damages liability their testimony in judicial proceedings was well was well liabilityforfor their testimony in judicial proceedings established ininEnglish common law.law. Some American decisions English common Some American decisions required that that the witness’ allegedly defamatory requireda ashowing showing the witness’ allegedly defamatory statements were relevant proceeding, butbut once thisthis relevant to tothe thejudicial judicial proceeding, once threshold showing had been made, the witness had an absolute threshold showing had been made, the witness had an absolute privilege. notnot recover even if the witness knew privilege. The The plaintiff plaintiffcould could recover even if the witness knew the statements statements were were false false and and made madethem them with with malice. Id. at 330-31 (internal citations 330-31 (internal citations and andfootnotes footnotesomitted); omitted);see see also also Restatement 2d of

Torts § 587 587 (“A (“A party …… is is absolutely privileged to publish partyto toaaprivate privatelitigation litigation absolutely privileged to publish defamatory another in communications preliminary to a defamatorymatter matterconcerning concerning another in communications preliminary to a proposed judicial ofof oror during thethe course and as as judicialproceeding, proceeding,or orininthe theinstitution institution during course and a part part of, which hehe participates, if the matter has has some of, aa judicial judicialproceeding proceedinginin which participates, if the matter some relation proceeding.”). In discussing the relative lack of distinction relationtotothe the proceeding.”). In discussing the relative lack of distinction between the English and American Court specifically examined American rules, rules, the the Briscoe Briscoe Court those jurisdictions jurisdictions requiring that thethe judicial proceedings statements requiringa ashowing showing that judicial proceedings statements were in forfor a privilege: “Although somesome cases useuse in good good faith faithininorder ordertotoqualify qualify a privilege: “Although cases the words good faithfaith waswas established … if the were were words‘good ‘goodfaith,’ faith,’ good established … ifstatements the statements pertinent to the judicial proceeding and given response to pertinentand andmaterial material to the judicial proceeding and in given in response to

39 39 40 40

Appendix AppendixA, A,at at15a. 15a. Appendix A, at 15a. Appendix A, at 15a.

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

questions. Indeed, testimony waswas not not pertinent, the [defamation Indeed,even evenif ifthe the testimony pertinent, the [defamation claim] Id Id at at 331 n.11.41 claim] plaintiff plaintiffhad hadthe theburden burdenofofproving provingbad badfaith.” faith.” 331 n.11.41 Accordingly, Louisiana First First Circuit’s formulation of the of the Accordingly,even evenif the if the Louisiana Circuit’s formulation privilege requires a “good faith” belief, privilegeapplicable applicableininLouisiana Louisianaisiscorrect, correct,that thatit it requires a “good faith” belief, that formulation the Briscoe formulationisisininconflict conflictwith with the BriscoeCourt’s Court’sexamination examinationofofwhat what“good “good faith” materiality faith”requires requiresfor forpurposes purposesof ofthe theprivilege privilegefrom fromdefamation defamationliability: liability: materiality to the judicial judicialproceeding. proceeding.The Thequestion questionisisnot, not,as as the the Louisiana Louisianacourt courthere hereput putit,it, whether Hornot couldcould produce sufficient evidence evidence to support to the support the whetherMs. Ms. Hornot produce sufficient allegations,42 but whether whether the pertinent andand material to theto the allegations,42 but theallegations allegationswere were pertinent material proceedings. allegations all stemmed directly from Mr. proceedings. Here, Here,Ms. Ms.Hornot’s Hornot’s allegations all stemmed directly from Mr. Cardenas’s representation of of her in the personal injury Cardenas’s representation injurymatter, matter,and andrelated relatedtotoher her good faith faith belief belief in inthe theharms harmsshe she suffered suffered arising arisingfrom fromthat thatrepresentation. representation.Such Such testimony, court ultimately finds it sufficient to prevail on testimony, whether whetherthe thedistrict district court ultimately finds it sufficient to prevail on the claims brought brought through throughthose thoseallegations, allegations,should shouldclearly clearlysuffice sufficetotoinvoke invokethe the privilege The Louisiana First Circuit’s holding that itthat it privilegefrom fromdefamation defamationliability. liability. The Louisiana First Circuit’s holding was not with Briscoe, andand is therefore a solid basisbasis for granting not isisininconflict conflict with Briscoe, is therefore a solid for granting certiorari. certiorari.U.S. U.S. S. S. Ct. Rule Rule 10(c). 10(c).

41 41

The leading privilege applied in in leading Louisiana Louisianacase caseregarding regardingthe thequalified qualified privilege applied this civil with thethe Briscoe understanding of the civillaw lawjurisdiction jurisdictioncomports comports with BriscoeCourt’s Court’s understanding of the limited faith” requirement: “[A]n“[A]n attorney in Louisiana cannot make limited“good “good faith” requirement: attorney in Louisiana cannot make disparaging either in pleadings, briefs orbriefs argument, if the disparagingstatements, statements, either in pleadings, or argument, if the defamatory or or defamatory statements statementsare are not notpertinent pertinenttotothe thecase caseororare aremade mademaliciously maliciously without reasonable basis.” Freeman v. Cooper, 414, So. 2d 355, 359 (La. 1982) without reasonable basis.” Freeman v. Cooper, 414, So. 2d 355, 359 (La. 1982) (emphasis added). 42 42 Indeed, in disallowal of Ms. Hornot’s requests to to in light lightofofthe thetrial trialjudge’s judge’s disallowal of Ms. Hornot’s requests have time to retain retain new new counsel counsel or, or, at at the the very veryleast, least, retrieve retrievedocuments documentsthat thatshe she had provided upon herher belief thatthat he was going to represent providedtotoMr. Mr.Alexander Alexander upon belief he was going to represent her at the trial to to meet such a standard was trial of ofthis thismatter, matter,Ms. Ms.Hornot’s Hornot’sinability inability meet such a standard was essentially guaranteed from the outset.

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

The zero-sum Louisiana court here essentially zero-sum analysis analysisimposed imposedbybythe the Louisiana court here essentially requires a plaintiff plaintiff totobe besuccessful successful in in proving provingthe theallegations allegationsofofher hercomplaint complaintoror face liability for face liability fordefamation. defamation.Such Suchaa chilling chillingeffect effecton onthe theseeking seekingof ofredress redress in in the the courts should of of thethe First Amendment’s free free speech guarantees. See See shouldrun runafoul afoul First Amendment’s speech guarantees. Imbler v. Pachtman, U.S. 409, 409, 426 426 n.23 n.23 (1976) (1976)(“In (“In the law Pachtman, 424 424 U.S. lawofofdefamation, defamation,a a concern for the airing airing of of all all evidence evidence has has resulted in in an an absolute privilege privilegefor forany any courtroom courtroom statement statement relevant relevant to tothe thesubject subject matter matterof ofthe theproceeding. proceeding.InInthe thecase case of lawyers their briefs andand pleadings as well. … Chief lawyersthe theprivilege privilegeextends extendstoto their briefs pleadings as well. … Chief Justice Shaw expressed expressedthe thepolicy policy decision as as follows: follows: ‘Subject Justice Shaw ‘Subject to this this restriction restriction [of forfor thethe public interest, andand bestbest calculated to to [of relevancy], relevancy],ititis,is,on onthe thewhole, whole, public interest, calculated subserve the to to allow counsel full freedom of speech, in the purposes purposesofofjustice, justice, allow counsel full freedom of speech, in conducting advocating and and sustaining the rights, their or their conductingthe thecauses causesand and advocating sustaining the or rights, constituents; freedom of discussion oughtought not to not be impaired by constituents;and andthis this freedom of discussion to be impaired by numerous Hoar v. v. Wood, numerous and and refined refineddistinctions.’”) distinctions.’”)(quoting (quoting Hoar Wood,44 44Mass. Mass.193 193 (1841)) (1841))

(emphasis added). To the the extent extent that that the the current current scope scope of of the the judicial judicial proceedings

privilege matter andand has has not been explored by this privilegeisisdefined definedasasa aprudential prudential matter not been explored by this Court inin this matter would enable Court for forits itsconstitutional constitutionalscope, scope,granting grantingcertiorari certiorari this matter would enable the Court Court to totake takeup upthis thistask. task.U.S. U.S.S. S. Ct. Ct. Rule Rule 10(c). 10(c).

CONCLUSION CONCLUSION Ms. Hornot Hornot respectfully respectfullyrequests requests that that this thisCourt Courtgrant grantthis thispetition petitionfor forwrit writ of certiorari. certiorari. The The decision decision of of the the Louisiana Louisiana First FirstCircuit CircuitCourt CourtofofAppeal, Appeal,allowed allowed to stand Supreme Court, conflicts withwith the decisions of thisof this stand by bythe theLouisiana Louisiana Supreme Court, conflicts the decisions Court of of thethe U.S. Courts of Appeals withwith regard to theto the Court and andwith withthe thedecisions decisions U.S. Courts of Appeals regard Fourteenth byby retained Fourteenth Amendment Amendmentdue dueprocess processguarantees guaranteestotobeberepresented represented retained

Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=10297462-3e59-45e5-b551-924c47776f27

counsel in civil civilproceedings, proceedings,and andtotobe befree freefrom fromaahostile hostileororbiased biasedadjudication adjudication of private thethe Louisiana First Circuit’s decision provides the the privaterights. rights.Moreover, Moreover, Louisiana First Circuit’s decision provides opportunity to to examine thethe First Amendment foundation for, for, andand opportunityfor forthis thisCourt Court examine First Amendment foundation the appropriate (whether “absolute” or “qualified”) from from appropriatescope scopeof, of,aaprivilege privilege (whether “absolute” or “qualified”) defamation proceedings. ofof defamation liability liabilityfor forallegations allegationsmade madeininjudicial judicial proceedings.The Theattention attention this Court Courtisis merited meritedon oneach eachof ofthese these issues. issues.

Respectfully submitted, submitted,

_____________________________ Harvey HarveyS. S. Bartlett BartlettIII, III,Counsel CounselofofRecord Record The Bartlett Law Firm, Firm, APLC APLC 5000 West Esplanade Esplanade Avenue, Avenue, Box 5000 West Box 632 632 Metairie, Metairie, Louisiana Louisiana70006 70006 (504) (504) 756-6334 756-6334 Counsel for Petitioner Petitioner Counsel for