Louisiana lawmakers are moving legislation to partially restore privileges for legislators who are attorneys. (Getty Images)
Louisiana lawmakers are considering two bills to partially restore privileges for legislators who are attorneys after a previous, similar law was declared unconstitutional last month.
The Senate Judiciary A committee moved Senate Bill 7 and Senate Bill 9 Thursday to grant attorneys who are legislators special privileges to ask for extensions on legal deadlines and court appearances when it conflicts with their statehouse work.
“The fact is we need lawyers in the Legislature,” said Sen. Jay Luneau, D-Alexandria, an attorney who sponsored one of the bills. “Lawyers … who are plaintiffs lawyers aren’t going to be able to be legislators,” if a new law isn’t passed.
The proposals resemble an old legislative continuance law, which automatically allowed attorney-legislators to delay court proceedings if they interfered with their elected job. The Louisiana Supreme Court struck down that law in late October and criticized it for giving the attorney-lawmakers “unchecked authority.”
Instead, the Supreme Court issued substitute guidance earlier this month laying out when attorney-lawmakers could ask for court extensions on a more limited basis.
If the legislators approve either of the two bills outlining a new set of the attorney-lawmaker privileges, they would replace the guidance issued by the Supreme Court. But lawmakers must be careful not to overplay their hand with any new statute. The justices made it clear in their opinions and remarks that the original statute granted the attorney-lawmakers too much power.
Luneau and Sen. Greg Miller, R-Norco, an attorney who authored the second continuance bill, included provisions in their respective pieces of legislation that allow opposing counsel to challenge an attorney-legislator’s request for an extension. No such exception existed in the original law.
Under the bills, a judge could deny the request if it’s determined the attorney-legislator was seeking it for an “improper” purpose or if the objecting party would suffer “substantial and immediate harm” if the delay is granted.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
Miller’s bill also declares attorney-legislators cannot seek legislative extensions in certain types of court proceedings such as those concerning domestic violence, protective orders or child custody. Legislative delays under those circumstances aren’t appropriate because of the time sensitivity involved, he said.
The Supreme Court threw out the original continuance law in response to the behavior of law firm partners Sen. Alan Seabaugh, R-Shreveport, and Rep. Michael Melerine, R-Shreveport, during a personal injury case. Seabaugh and Melerine’s opposing counsel argued that their case had been held up for years over the two legislators’ request for delays over statehouse proceedings.
Seabaugh sits on the Judiciary A committee that vetted the Miller and Luneau bills Thursday morning, but he didn’t attend the committee hearing on the legislation. Outside of legislative efforts to pass new continuance laws, Attorney General Liz Murrill asked the Supreme Court last week to reconsider their ruling striking down the original law.
“It is, of course the function of the courts to say what the law is, but it is the function of the legislature to pass laws that govern the conduct of state government institutions including the Judiciary,” Murrill wrote in a brief to the court.
This is a developing story. Please check back with us for more details.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.