In re McCool
Decision Date | 30 June 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 2015–B–0284.,2015–B–0284. |
Citation | 172 So.3d 1058 |
Parties | In re Joyce Nanine McCOOL. |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Charles Bennett Plattsmier, Tammy Pruet Northrup, Baton Rouge, LA, for Applicant.
McCool Law, LLC, Mandeville, LA, Joyce Nanine McCool; Richard Ducote, PC, Richard Lynn Ducote, Metairie, LA, for Respondent.
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Joyce Nanine McCool,1 an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana.
The underlying facts of this case are rather complex. By way of background, respondent was friends with Raven Skye Boyd Maurer (“Raven”). Following Raven's divorce in 2006, she and her former husband were involved in a bitter child custody dispute. Raven accused her ex-husband of sexually abusing their two young daughters, H. and Z.,2 and unsuccessfully sought to terminate his parental rights in proceedings pending in Mississippi before Judge Deborah Gambrell.3 Respondent is not admitted to the Mississippi Bar and was not admitted pro hac vice in Raven's Mississippi case, but she did offer assistance to Raven as a friend.
Meanwhile, respondent filed a petition in St. Tammany Parish on behalf of Raven's new husband, who sought to adopt H. and Z. The presiding judge, Judge Dawn Amacker, stayed the intrafamily adoption proceedings pending resolution of the Mississippi matter. Judge Amacker also declined to exercise subject matter jurisdiction in response to a motion for emergency custody filed by respondent on Raven's behalf. After Judge Amacker issued her ruling declining to exercise subject matter jurisdiction, respondent filed a writ application with the First Circuit Court of Appeal, which was denied.4 On August 31, 2011, this Court likewise denied writs. Maurer v. Boyd, 11–1787 (La.8/31/11), 68 So.3d 517.
Unhappy with the various rulings made by Judge Gambrell and Judge Amacker and believing those rulings were legally wrong, respondent drafted an online petition entitled “Justice for [H] and [Z]” which she and Raven posted on the internet at change.org, along with a photo of the two girls. With regard to the Mississippi proceeding before Judge Gambrell, the online petition stated:
To Judge Deborah Gambrell, we, the undersigned, ask that you renounce jurisdiction in this matter to the Louisiana court because the children have lived exclusively in Louisiana for the past three years. Their schools, teachers, physicians, therapists, little sister and brother and the vast majority of significant contacts are now in Louisiana. There is also an adoption proceeding pending in Louisiana over which Louisiana has jurisdiction and in the interest of judicial economy, and the best interest of the girls, Louisiana is the more appropriate forum to oversee ensure [sic] the “best interest” of the girls are protected. If you refuse to relinquish jurisdiction to Louisiana, we insist that you remove the Guardian Ad Litem currently assigned to the case, and replace him with one that has the proper training and experience in investigating allegations of child sexual abuse in custody proceedings. We further insist that, in keeping [with] S.G. v. D.C., 13 So.3d 269 (Miss.2009), you specifically define the Guardian Ad Litem's role in the suit; require the new Guardian Ad Litem [to] prepare a written report; require that the report be shared with all parties prior to a hearing; that all proceeding be conducted on the record, with advance notice and opportunity to be heard, and that an evidentiary hearing be conducted to review the allegations of child sexual abuse, and that no visitation be allowed until you have seen all of the evidence.
As to Judge Amacker and the Louisiana proceedings, the petition stated:
To Judge Amacker, we, the undersigned, insist that you withdraw the unlawful stay of the adoption proceedings currently pending in your court, and, in accordance with La.Ch.C. art. 1253, a hearing be set with all due speed to allow the girls' stepfather to show why it is in the girls' best interest that they be adopted by him, thereby terminating all parental rights of the girls' biological father.
Respondent re-posted the online petition on her blog site and in online articles she authored, one of which again included a photo of the two girls. She provided contact information for the judges' offices and this Court, and added comments in which she solicited and encouraged others to express their feelings to the judges and this Court about the pending cases:
In response to the postings made by respondent, on August 14, 2011—two days prior to a hearing in Mississippi on Raven's motion for contempt and to terminate her former husband's parental rights—Judge Gambrell's staff received an e-mail from Heather Lyons, a signer of the online petition. Ms. Lyons stated she lived and voted in Forrest County, Mississippi, and she would “be paying attention” to Raven's case
A copy of the online petition and comments thereto was then filed with the Marion County Chancery Clerk of Court's Office (“Marion County Court”) and faxed directly to Judge Amacker's office in Louisiana, apparently by Raven or her mother. On August 22, 2011, Judge Amacker had her administrative assistant return the petition to respondent with instructions respondent caution her client against ex parte communications with the judge.
Undaunted, respondent continued her online and social media campaign, further disseminating the sexual abuse allegations and even going so far as to link the audio recordings in which Raven and her children discussed the alleged abuse.5 Respondent also stated (falsely) that no judge had ever heard these recordings because Judge Gambrell refused to allow the recordings into evidence and Judge Amacker refused to conduct a hearing:
Respondent also used her personal Twitter account to promote the online petition and to otherwise draw attention to the audio recordings and the manner in which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Callaghan
...(suspending lawyer one year and one day with six months deferred by two years' probation for saying judge was incompetent); In re McCool , 172 So.3d 1058 (La. 2015) (disbarring lawyer for orchestrating media campaign based on false or misleading information in effort to intimidate judge); D......
- Faulk v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
-
75-80 Props., LLC v. Rale, Inc.
...an attorney allegedly violated disciplinary rules by making false and unreasonable allegations of unethical conduct); In re McCool , 172 So. 3d 1058, 1075-78 (La. 2015) (holding that the First Amendment did not protect a lawyer from sanctions for waging an online campaign in which she encou......
-
Griffith v. CMR Constr.
...both attorneys) does not mean she did not rule on defendant's claim. As noted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in In re McCool , 2015-0284 (La. 6/30/15), 172 So. 3d 1058, 1075, cert. denied , 577 U.S. 1120, 136 S. Ct. 989, 194 L.Ed. 2d 6 (2016), it is well established that those matters not e......
-
The Fine Art of Self-promotion: a Primer on Modern Lawyer Advertising Under the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct
...Disp. May 8, 2013). [68] Hunter v. Va. State Bar ex rel. Third Dist. Comm., 285 Va. 485, 744 S.E.2d 611, 616 (2013). [69] In re McCool, 172 So.3d 1058 (La. 2015)(tweets were "false, misleading, and inflammatory"). [70] Vibe TV. https://www.vibe.co/industries/law-firms-attorneys?utm_source=G......