The Rule of Necessity applied in La.

“[W]here all are disqualified, none are disqualified.” Turner v. American Bar Ass’n, 407 F.Supp. 451, 483 (N.D. Tex., W.D. Pa., N.D. Ind., D. Minn., S.D. Ala., W.D. Wis. 1975). Yesterday, the Louisiana Supreme Court applied that maxim to a case where a litigant essentially sought to recuse every judge in Louisiana. Slaughter v. La. State Employees' Retirement Sys., 2024-00358 (La. 5/21/24).

The plaintiff in Slaughter alleges that the Louisiana judges’ supplemental pay from the Judicial Compensation Fund is being improperly included by LASERS in calculating the judges’ retirement benefits. After the case was randomly allotted, the plaintiff moved to recuse the assigned district-court judge on grounds that the judge was a member of LASERS and thus had a financial interest in the litigation’s outcome. The district court denied the recusal motion, sustained defendants’ peremptory exceptions, and dismissed the suit. Plaintiff then took two appeals to the First Circuit, one on the recusal and the other on the merits judgment. At the same time, the plaintiff moved to recuse all First Circuit judges on grounds that all of them had the same financial interest in the case as the district judge. The First Circuit’s chief judge asked the LASC to appoint a judge to her the recusal motion, and the LASC appointed an ad hoc judge for that task. The plaintiff then moved to recuse the ad hoc judge for having the same financial interest as the other judges. I think you can see where this is going—appointment of another ad hoc judge, another motion for recusal, etc.

“Recognizng the inability to resolve this matter through normal procedures,” the LASC intervened to “assume jurisdiction over the recusal issue ....” Slaughter, p. 2. The LASC resolved the recusal issue by applying the Rule of Necessity. The Rule calls for a judge to decide a case even though grounds for recusal exist when no other judge is available to decide the case.  Applying the Rule of Necessity, the LASC denied all of the plaintiff’s recusal motions. “The unique circumstances of the instance case clearly require application of the Rule of Necessity,” the LASC reasoned, since “Plaintiff asserts every sitting judge and retired judge in the state, both at the district and appellate level, may have some potential financial interest in the outcome of the suit.” Id., p. 5. In short, “where all are disqualified, none are disqualified.” Id., indirectly quoting Turner.