La. Supreme Court recuses chief justice from case involving former justice he's feuded with as attorney
BATON ROUGE — The Louisiana Supreme Court has recused Chief Justice John Weimer from a major case involving a former colleague as an attorney following a heated exchange between the two that reignited a lingering feud.
The motion to recuse Weimer, who has served as chief justice since 2021, was filed by former justice Scott Crichton, who is the leading counsel in a case involving a $421 million jury verdict in New Orleans against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana.
Crichton, who retired from the court a year and a half ago, argues that Weimer, in a series of "unorthodox letters," went out of his way to publicly disparage him.
A letter Weimer allegedly wrote Crichton, dated July 4, sees the Chief Justice accuse Crichton of knowingly breaking the law by acting in ways that were "self-serving," "self-centered" and "entitled."
Weimer sought a public apology for Crichton allegedly "taking advantage of the people," the writ adds.
Crichton responded with his own letter, but Weimer allegedly said his response was "disappointing and predictable" in a July 15 letter of his own.
Weimer further accuses Crichton of receiving "unjust enrichment" during his time as a justice.
Trending News
Weimer, Crichton argues, has an "outright hatred" for the former justice. He said this should bar Weimer from any case that Crichton handles as an attorney.
"Chief Justice Weimer’s repeated actions to advance his personal agenda against the enrolled lead counsel of record in a docketed case crossed the threshold of what can reasonably be tolerated in fair proceedings," the court wrote in its writ, which was granted on Tuesday.
The court argues that "if Chief Justice Weimer were allowed to participate in this matter, his ultimate decision would be subject to attack by either side."
"Chief Justice Weimer's repeated actions to advance his personal agenda against the enrolled lead counsel of record in a docketed case crossed the threshold of what can reasonably be tolerated in fair proceedings," the court added.