Recent Development by Kendra Huard Fershee
When then-attorney, now-Federal District Judge Carl J. Barbier took his seat as President of the Louisiana Trial Lawyers Association (LTLA), he probably had no idea that his service for the LTLA would later cause him to suffer an embarrassing blow to his judicial integrity. Six months after he finished his yearlong term as president, the LTLA filed a motion seeking permission to file an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in a state tobacco case. Because of an unfortunate clerical error that wrongly listed him as the president of LTLA on that motion, Judge Barbier became the center of a heated debate about when it is appropriate to require a judge to recuse himself from hearing litigation related to issues about which he may have a personal opinion.
The defendant tobacco companies in Republic of Panama II filed a timely motion of removal to federal court, after which the case was assigned to Judge Barbier's court. The defendants then filed a motion for recusal that the judge denied by exercising his discretion as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Thereafter the judge granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court. On appeal, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that Judge Barbier abused his discretion and reversed the decision denying recusal. The panel then vacated Judge Barbier's order to remand the case to state court and sent the case back to federal district court to be assigned to a different judge. The plaintiffs appealed the panel's decision and filed a petition for rehearing en banc. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc and thereby refused to reconsider whether Judge Barbier had been properly removed for an appearance of partiality and thus allowed its earlier decision forcing his recusal to stand. Republic of Panama v. American Tobacco Co., 265 F.3d 299, 300 (5th Cir. 2001).
About the Author
Kendra Huard Fershee.
Citation
77 Tul. L. Rev. 517 (2002)