Opinion
No. 2020-C-00858
10-20-2020
Cindy WILLIAMS v. Norman S. HALEY Cindy H. Williams v. Norman S. Haley
PER CURIAM
Writ Granted. Considering the unique facts of this case, the conduct of respondent, and the fact that relator was ultimately successful in obtaining a permanent injunction against respondent, the district court's decision to award attorney's fees in connection with respondent's motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the judgment of October 31, 2018, awarding respondent attorney's fees in the amount of $8,290.00 is reversed.
Further, considering the egregious nature of respondent's behavior, the trial court did not manifestly err in permanently enjoining respondent "from communicating with [relator] in any manner." Accordingly, the ruling of the court of appeal amending the March 12, 2019 judgment to remove the restriction barring respondent from communicating with relator is reversed, and the trial court judgment prohibiting respondent from communicating with relator in any manner is reinstated. The ruling of the court of appeal, insofar as it removes the restriction barring communications between relator and respondent's agents or assigns, is affirmed.
Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
I agree with the per curiam in its entirety. I write separately to note my agreement with Judge Dysart's dissent in part insofar as he described respondent's conduct herein as "shocking" and "completely abhorrent." See Williams v. Haley , 19-0116 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/3/20), 302 So. 3d 13 (Dysart, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Respondent, an officer of the court, appears to have intentionally veered into relator in a hallway, knocking her against a wall. This conduct may have met the standards set forth in R.S. 14:33 for a battery, as noted by both the trial court and Judge Dysart. See La. R. Prof. Conduct R. 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer), R. 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). See also In re: DeJean , 18-1333 (La. 1/30/19), 264 So. 3d 424 (imposing suspension of one year and one day where respondent was charged with simple battery after "chest bumping" another attorney in the courthouse). Finally, I agree with Judge Dysart's astute observation that respondent engaged in "egregious behavior without any sliver of remorse." In light of these outrageous circumstances, I agree with the per curiam that the award of attorney's fees to respondent was an abuse of discretion.