> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.wbrindependent.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Campaign money, sealed records, and a leaked letter: The discipline case against Justice Hughes - URL: https://www.wbrindependent.com/hughes-judiciary-commission-misconduct-charges-part-3/ - Published: 2026-09-03T16:58:54.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-03T17:04:54.000Z - Description: The Judiciary Commission formally charged Justice Jefferson D. Hughes III with two counts of misconduct, alleging retaliatory lawsuits, campaign fund misuse, and intimidation. A hearing is set for October at the Louisiana Supreme Court. - Author: John Summers - Tags: Court ## Court filings show a months-long fight over whether the public would see the misconduct charges before Hughes went to trial against The Advocate. *By John Summers | WBR Independent* *This is Part 3 of an ongoing series.* [*Part 1* ](https://www.wbrindependent.com/hughes-v-advocate-defamation-trial-iberville-parish/)*covers jury selection and opening statements.* [*Part 2*](https://www.wbrindependent.com/hughes-v-advocate-jury-verdict-30000/) *covers the trial testimony and verdict.* NEW ORLEANS — The Louisiana Judiciary Commission this week released formal misconduct charges against Supreme Court Justice Jefferson D. Hughes III, as first reported by The Advocate. The two-count case alleges Hughes used his seat on the state's highest court, and more than $50,000 in campaign funds, to pursue retaliatory lawsuits against a newspaper and a private citizen. But the public filings tell a bigger story than the charges alone. Hundreds of pages of motions, orders, and exhibits filed in Case No. 0408 reveal a months-long procedural fight over whether the charges would become public before Hughes went to trial against The Advocate in August, and whether the Commission's own prosecutor improperly shared confidential information with The Advocate's attorneys. Hughes filed his answer on August 31, making the docket public under Louisiana Supreme Court rules. The two-page response denied all charges and called them "frivolous." Attached to it: a copy of the jury verdict from his defamation trial, in which an Iberville Parish jury awarded him $300,000 days earlier. A formal hearing is set for October 12-16 at the Louisiana Supreme Court before retired Judge Ernestine Gray. **The charges** The Commission's Notice of Hearing, filed May 5, lays out two counts. Count I centers on the defamation lawsuits Hughes filed against The Advocate and against Lana Venable, then the executive director of Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse Watch. Venable had written a letter to the editor published in The Advocate in September 2019 that referenced an FBI investigation into Hughes's conduct. The Commission alleges Hughes filed both suits for the purposes of retaliation, intimidation, and harassment. It also alleges he spent more than $50,000 in campaign contributions to pay for them, calling the spending a personal use of those funds. Defamation is an inherently personal claim, the Commission notes, and any damages would have gone directly to Hughes. Because Hughes faces mandatory retirement due to age and cannot seek the seat again, the Commission says the campaign money was used for his sole benefit. Count II involves Hughes's conduct toward attorney David Bienvenu after Bienvenu filed the judicial discipline complaint that led to the current case. According to the filings, Bienvenu filed his complaint on August 11, 2022\. Four days later, the Commission's Office of Special Counsel contacted Hughes about it. On August 19, Hughes texted Bienvenu: "Hope you're getting to bill this!" The Commission says the timing and substance of the text amounted to intimidation. The count also describes Hughes's handling of cases involving Bienvenu's clients through 2024, including an appointment of a temporary judge the Supreme Court later reversed and Hughes's participation in a high-profile election case after abruptly dismissing his lawsuit against Venable the same day. **How Hughes used his office, according to the Commission** The Notice of Hearing describes specific ways the Commission says Hughes leveraged his judicial position in private litigation. These details, drawn directly from the filings, go beyond what has been previously reported. Hughes enrolled as his own additional counsel in the Advocate case in May 2022, personally deposed reporters, and attempted to identify their confidential sources. During one deposition conducted via Zoom, the seal of the Louisiana Supreme Court was visible on his virtual background. In the Venable case, which Hughes handled without an attorney, he listed the Louisiana Supreme Court's street address in his signature block on court pleadings. During settlement negotiations, Hughes told Bienvenu that he would use the lawsuit to "find out about" the advocacy group Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. He also told Bienvenu he "knew who else he works for." The Commission says those statements, coming from a sitting Supreme Court justice representing himself, amounted to intimidation and abuse of process. The filings also allege Hughes gained early access to a court ruling in the Advocate case, five days before the public and opposing counsel were notified, then called Bienvenu to pressure a settlement in the separate Venable case. The Commission says the only reason Hughes had advance knowledge of the ruling was because he holds office in the court that issued it. **The fight over going public** The public docket also reveals a procedural battle over timing that played out over several weeks this summer. Hughes was initially required to file his answer by June 15\. On June 1, he requested a 30-day extension to obtain counsel. Hearing Officer Ernestine Gray granted that request, pushing the deadline to July 15. On June 18, Hughes's newly retained attorney, Edward Walters Jr. of Walters, Thomas, Cullens in Baton Rouge, filed a Motion for Stay and Related Matters. The motion asked that all proceedings be paused until August 31 and that Hughes's answer deadline be pushed back to the same date. The reason: Hughes was preparing for his civil jury trial against The Advocate, scheduled to begin August 17. In an email to the hearing officer's counsel on May 25, before he had an attorney, Hughes laid out his position directly. He said the timing of the discipline case, coming after a four-year investigation, was forcing him to prepare for two major proceedings at once. He accused The Advocate's attorneys of filing the original complaints "in August 2022 on the eve of the original trial setting" in order to interfere with his case. Hughes wrote that he questioned "the timing in this matter on the eve of trial after four years of investigation." He also argued that the complaining witnesses in the discipline case were the same attorneys representing The Advocate at trial, creating what he called procedural complications that "should be recognized." On June 23, Hearing Officer Gray granted the stay, extended Hughes's answer deadline to August 31, and issued a protective order sealing the 2004 Deferred Recommendation of Discipline Agreement. A DRDA is a confidential agreement to resolve misconduct complaints without public discipline. Two days later, the Commission's Special Counsel, Michelle Beaty, asked the full Commission to reverse the hearing officer's ruling. Beaty argued that the real purpose of Hughes's motion was not to manage competing trial schedules but to delay public disclosure of the charges. "Respondent's request does nothing to change the discovery and other hearing preparation deadlines which will remain in place even though his answer would not be due until August 31st," Beaty wrote. "These facts suggest that the real purpose of Respondent's motion is to delay public disclosure which is a completely different interest than the one asserted." On June 26, the Commission sided with Beaty in part. It reversed the stay and restored the July 15 answer deadline, citing the Supreme Court rules' "intent of providing greater transparency to the public." But it upheld the protective order keeping the actual 2004 DRDA document under seal, while allowing references to it and a general description of the underlying conduct to remain public. Hughes's answer deadline was later extended again to August 31, after his civil trial. He filed his answer at 4:20 p.m. that day. **The leaked letter** Hughes's most pointed allegation is aimed not at the charges themselves but at the Commission's prosecutor. On August 28, three days before filing his answer, Hughes filed a Motion to Recuse Special Counsel Michelle Beaty. In that motion, Hughes alleges Beaty sent a letter on June 10 to Marcia Suzy Montero, an attorney at Sternberg, Naccari & White who represents The Advocate, notifying her of the October hearing date and asking her to calendar the dates in case her testimony was needed. According to Hughes, Montero contacted his civil trial attorney, Caleb Didriksen of Didriksen, Saucier & Woods, on June 15 and requested a face-to-face meeting. At that meeting the next day, Hughes says Montero showed Didriksen the letter from Beaty and told him the Judiciary Commission matter would become public on July 15. Hughes argues the information was confidential at the time and was then used to pressure a continuance or settlement in his civil case on the eve of trial. "This information was unethically disclosed and then used on the eve of trial to pressure Plaintiff/Respondent in the pending litigation," Hughes wrote. Beaty has not publicly responded to the recusal motion. In earlier filings, the Office of Special Counsel told the Commission that it contacted Montero because she was a potential witness in the discipline proceeding. The Commission subsequently ordered Beaty's personal contact information redacted from the public record after Hughes's counsel included the full letter, with her cell phone number, as an exhibit. **Prior discipline** This is the third time Hughes has faced Judiciary Commission proceedings. In September 2004, he entered into a DRDA with the Commission and was admonished for acting beyond his role as a neutral judge in a case called Nicholson, for failing to recuse himself from that case and another, and for communicating with one side of a case outside of court. The Commission placed the 2004 agreement itself under seal but ruled that references to it may remain public. In 2021, the Louisiana Supreme Court publicly censured Hughes through a consent agreement for a conversation with a campaign worker during a 2019 runoff election. The worker told the Commission he interpreted the conversation as an effort to persuade him to switch his support to a rival candidate's opponent. Hughes paid more than $2,000 to resolve that case. **Hughes's response** Hughes's answer runs two pages. He denied the charges and called them frivolous. He wrote that the defamation lawsuit was filed in response to more than 30 articles The Advocate published between 2019 and 2020, all based on what he called a false allegation from 1999: that he ruled in favor of a litigant represented by his girlfriend. Hughes said that claim was disproven at the August trial. "The 1999 allegations were disproven at the August 17 trial," Hughes wrote. "Brenda Nicholson, David Fleming, and David Bienvenue testified under oath for The Advocate, yet the jury rendered a verdict for Plaintiff." He also wrote that The Advocate's Special Counsel suggestion that he could have written a letter to the editor instead of filing suit was "incredibly naive, or evidence of bias," noting that The Advocate had refused to run even a paid advertisement from him. Hughes attached the jury verdict form, showing the $300,000 award, and a jury instruction from his trial attorney confirming that the court found Hughes had a "probability of success on the merits" under Louisiana's special motion to strike statute. Hughes continues to serve on the Louisiana Supreme Court. He is 74 and cannot run for the seat again under the state's mandatory retirement age of 70 for judicial candidates. **What happens next** Discovery in the discipline case must be completed by September 11\. Witness and exhibit lists are due the same day. Motions in limine, which are pre-hearing requests to exclude certain evidence, are due September 30. The hearing is scheduled for five days, October 12-16, at the Louisiana Supreme Court in New Orleans. If the hearing officer recommends discipline, the full Judiciary Commission votes on it. If the Commission recommends discipline, the matter is filed with the Louisiana Supreme Court for a final decision. The Commission has the authority to recommend penalties up to removal from the bench. --- *Disclosure: Sternberg, Naccari & White, which represents The Advocate in the defamation case, has also represented WBR Independent in prior, unrelated matters.* *WBR Independent sought comment from the Judiciary Commission, Hughes's counsel, and the Office of Special Counsel. The Commission's office declined to comment, citing confidentiality rules. Special Counsel Beaty was out of the office and unavailable. Hughes's attorney, Edward Walters Jr., did not respond to a request for comment. Hughes declined to comment to The Advocate.*