In Re: F. Stanton Hardee, III Sa

1
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #005
FROM
: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The Opinions handed down on the 27th day of January, 2021 are as follows:
BY Crain, J.:
2020-O-00747 IN RE: F. STANTON HARDEE, III
SA
NCTIONS IMPOSED. SEE OPINION.
Lo
mbard, J., assigned as Justice ad hoc , sitting for Retired Chi ef Justice
J
ohnson, for oral argument. He now sits as Justice ad hoc for Justice Piper
Griffin at the time this opinion is rendered.
Weimer,
C.J., concurs in part, dissents in part, and assigns reasons.
Crichton, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
McCallum, J.,
concurs in part and dissents in part for the reasons assigned
by Chief Justice Weimer.

1
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2020-O-00747
IN RE: F. STANTON HARDEE, III
Judiciary Commission of Louisiana
CRAIN, J.*
This matter i s before the c ourt on the recommendation of the Judiciary
Commission of Louisiana. We adopt the Commission’s recommendation, except for
the length of monitoring by the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP) .
We require Judge Hardee to successfully complete the five-year JLAP monitoring
agreement executed on December 5, 2017.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Judge F. Stanton Hardee, III was elected judge for the Kaplan City Court in
Vermillion Parish and took office in 2015 . He was recently reelected without
opposition to a new six -year term. Other than the six months his law license was
suspended for the subject incident, he has served continuously since 2015.
In January 2017, Judge Hardee attended a bachelor party in Park City, Utah
celebrating his upcoming wedding. He visited a local bar and consumed excessive
amounts of alcohol , bec oming extremely intoxicate d. It is u ndisputed that he
grabbed the buttocks of a waitress without her consent, Park City Police were called,
he did not immediately produce identification, and he failed to cooperate with police
at the scene.
Judge Hardee was charged with the following crimes, all misdemeanors under
Utah law: (1) Sexual Battery, in violation of U.C.A. 76 -9-702.1; (2) Failure to
* Lombard, J., assigned as justice ad hoc, sitting for Retired Chief Justice Johnson, for oral
argument. He now sits as Justice ad hoc for Justice Piper Griffin at the time this opinion is
rendered.
01/27/2021

2

Disclose Identity, in violation of U.C.A. 76-8-301.5; (3) Interference with Arresting
Officer, in violation of U.C.A. 76-8-305; and (4) Intoxication, in violation of U.C.A.
76-9-701. He pled no contest to these charges and has fully satisfied all terms and
conditions of the plea.
As a part -time city court judge , Judge Hardee is allowed to practice law.
Consequently, he is subject to the jurisdiction of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
(ODC), which regulates attorneys. In November 2018, a joint petition for consent
discipline was filed by Judge Hardee and the ODC. The court approved the
requested consent discipline, which included a five-year JLAP monitoring
agreement that began December 5, 201 7.1 See In re: Hardee , 18 -1555 (La.
11/14/18), 259 So. 3d 329. The consent discipline resulted in Judge Hardee being
suspended from the practice of law for one year with all but six months deferred,
followed by probation coincid ing with the remainder of his JLAP monitoring
agreement. If successfully completed, JLAP monitoring will end on December 5,
2022.
On February 1, 2019, after this court approved the joint petition for consent
discipline, the Judiciary Commission filed formal charges against Judge Hardee.
Judge Calvin Johnson was appointed hearing officer to conduct the proceedings. A
“Statement of Stipulated Uncontested Material Facts and Stipulated Conclusions of
Law” was then filed in which Judge Hardee stipulated to his criminal conduct in
Utah and acknowledged violating Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
After Judge Johnson conducted a hearing on the charges , Judge Hardee was
ordered to appear and testify before the Commission. The Commission found the
allegations of misconduct proven by clear and convincing evidence . The

1 JLAP recommends five -year monitoring because studies sh ow long -term structured
recovery and formal monitoring for five years greatly increases the odds of avoiding substance
abuse relapse.

3

Commission then filed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and its recommendation
of discipline in this court. The recommendation is Judge Hardee be suspended from
judicial office for two years with all but six months deferred, retroactive to the date
of his suspension as an attorney. In addition, Judge Hardee would be subject to a
period of JLAP monitoring until December 31, 2026, the end of his new term in
office, and ordered to pay $2,025.32 incurred to investigate and prosecute this case.
DISCUSSION
Because the facts and legal conclusions are stipulated, the sole issue presented
is the appropriate judicial discipline. In re: Shea, 02-0643 (La. 4/26/02), 815 So.2d
813, 816. The only issues not stipulated are the role, if any, of a substance abuse
disorder in Judge Hardee’s conduct and the need for additional JLAP monitoring.
Judge Hardee disputes his diagnosis and the need for additional monitoring.
He has executed a five-year JLAP monitoring agreement and, assuming he remains
compliant, monitoring will end on December 5, 2022. Nevertheless, t he
Commission, which did not act on this matter until after the ODC and Judge Hardee
agreed to attorney discipline, now recommends extending monitoring through
December 31, 2026. We reject that recommendation.
In arriving at appropriate discipline , we are guided by the following factors
set forth in In re: Chaisson , 549 So.2d 259 , 266 (La. 1989): (a) whether the
misconduct is an isolated instance or evidences a pattern of conduct; (b) the nature,
extent, and frequency of occurrence of the acts of misconduct; (c) whether the
misconduct occurred in or out of the courtroom; (d) whether the misconduct
occurred in the judge's official capacity or in his private life; (e) whether the judge
has acknowledged or r ecognized that the acts occurred; (f) whether the judge has
evidenced an effort to change or modify his conduct; (g) the length of service on the
bench; (h) whether there have been prior complaints about this judge; (i) the effect

4

the misconduct has upon t he integrity of and respect for the judiciary; and (j) the
extent to which the judge exploited his position to satisfy his personal desires.
Applying these factors, Judge Hardee’s criminal conduct in Utah was a single
incident. While he has two prior alcohol-related arrests from 1999 and 2001, those
occurred before Judge Hardee became an attorney and were disclosed to gain
admission to the bar. Sixteen years then passed before his Utah arrest. Although
certainly concerning, the passage of time suggests no significant connection between
the prior behavior and the Utah incident.
Judge Hardee’s misconduct occurred in his private life, not his courtroom.
Judge Hardee d id not self -report his Utah arrest. However, a fter being
informed of inquiries , he cooperated with the Commission. He stipulated to his
criminal conduct and to violating Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
He publically apologized for his behavior and has stated he is remorseful for the
embarrassment his actions caused the judiciary and the legal profession. He entered
a five-year monitoring agreement with JLAP and has complied with all requirements
of this program. He also consented to discipline with the ODC, including suspension
from the practice of law for six months and removal from the bench without pay for
six months.
Judge Hardee has served as Kaplan City Court judge continuously since 2015,
except for the six months his law license was suspended. Any inexperience as a
judge played no role in his criminal conduct.
Judge Hardee has no previous disciplinary record for judicial misconduct.
Judge Hardee’s actions harmed the integrity of the judiciary. He admitted to
drunkenly groping a woman and refused to cooperate with police. His conduct was

5

reported by the local media in his judicial jurisdiction and damaged public respect
for the judiciary.
Judge Hardee did not exploit his position to satisfy his personal desires.
In addition to these factors, we also consider the following evidence. The
JLAP clinical director recommends Judge Hardee continue his current monitoring
program and certified he is compliant with his JLAP monitoring agreement. He has
also been evaluated at two medical facilities, The Professionals Wellness Evaluation
Center and RiverMend Health/Positive Sobriety Institute of Chicago. Professionals
recommends Judge Hardee continue his current monitoring agreement , while
RiverMend recommends extending the monitoring period.
RiverMend evaluated Judge Hardee in September 2017 and recommended
career-long monitoring. Nevertheless, in November 2018 this court imposed five
years of monitoring as part of its order disciplining Judge Hardee as an attorney. He
was later evaluated by Professionals, which found the current five-year monitoring
period sufficient and did not recommend additional monitoring . Other than Judge
Hardee disputing his substance abuse diagnosis in these proceedings, the record
contains no change in circumstance s to support an extension of the monitoring
period. It is significant that Judge Hardee has been fully compliant with the JLAP
monitoring agreement entered December 5, 2017. Under these circumstances, we
decline to extend monitoring.
Judge Hardee argues the doctrine of res judicata should estop the Commission
from imposing additional discipline because th is court already imposed attorney
discipline. As a judge and a practicing attorney , Judge Hardee is subject to the
jurisdiction of both the ODC and the J udiciary Commission. Louisiana Supreme
Court Rule XXIII, § 25 expressly provides that a judge who can legally engage in
the practice of law “is subject to the judicial disciplinary proceedings of the

6

Commission for conduct arising from or performed in his or her capacity as an
attorney. Action against such a judge by the Commission shall not preclude
disciplinary action against him or her by the appropriate authority concerning his or
her license to practice law.” In recognition of this dual jurisdiction, Supreme Court
Rule XXIII, § 25 provides “w here dual jurisdiction exists the Commission may
communicate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to coordinate the handling of
a matter.” While under the circumstances of this case we find it appropriate that the
probation period for judicial discipline be co-extensive with that for Judge Hardee’s
attorney discipline, we emphasize this is not required. We can impose additional
discipline. In fact, in the event Judge Hardee violates the terms of his probation, he
will be suspended for two years as a judge as opposed to one year as an attorney.
However, we find the length of probation and JLAP monitoring imposed for attorney
discipline and the fact that Judge Hardee has remained compliant with all terms of
that discipline does not warrant either extension of the probation period or additional
monitoring. Nevertheless, we feel constrained to express Judge Hardee’s argument
for the application of res judicata has no merit.
Judge Hardee’s criminal acts in this case are more serious because he is a
judge. The fact that he broke the law erodes the integrity of the judiciary and the
public’s confidence in it. His conduct was clearly prejudicial to the administration
of justice and has brought disrepute upon his judicial office. See In re Whitaker, 463
So.2d 1291, 1303 (La. 1985). In fact, it is perplexing why the Judiciary Commission
did not act initially against Judge Hardee, allowing the attorney discipline to occur
first. Judge Hardee is reminded that he is held to a higher standard of personal
conduct as a judge as compared to an attorney.
DECREE

7

Judge F. Stanton Hardee, III violated Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Judicial
Conduct. It is ordered that Judge Hardee be and he is suspended from judicial office
for two years without pay with all but six months deferred, retroactive to November
14, 2018, the date of his suspension as an attorney. His suspension is subject to
successful com pletion of the five -year JLAP moni toring agreement executed
December 5, 2017. Judge Hardee is further ordered to pay the Judiciary Commission
of Louisiana $2,025.32 for costs.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2020-C-00747
IN RE: JUDGE F. STANTON HARDEE III
Judiciary Commission of Louisiana
WEIMER, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I respectfully concur in the majority’s finding that the respondent be
“suspended from judicial office for two years without pay with all but six months
deferred, retroactive to November 14, 2018, the date of his suspension as an attorney”;
however, for the following reasons, I dissent from the majority’s holding that the
respondent’s “suspension [be simply] subject to successful completion of the five-year
[Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP)] monitoring agreement executed on
December 5, 2017.” In re: F. Stanton Hardee, III, 20-0747 (La. 1/__/21), slip op.,
pp. 6-7.
At the respondent’s request, RiverMend Health/Positive Sobriety Institute of
Chicago performed an evaluation of the respondent and recommended career-long
monitoring by JLAP. Apparently, the respondent was dissatisfied with that opinion
and sought a second evaluation by Professionals Wellness Evaluation Center. The
respondent uses Professionals’ recommendation as a basis for his argument that
completion of the current five-year JLAP monitoring agreement entered by consent in
the Office of Disciplinary Counsel proceeding that runs through December 5, 2022,
is an appropriate judicial discipline.
Expert medical evaluators, all chosen by respondent, have diagnosed the
respondent with some form of substance abuse disorder. The respondent’s denial of
those diagnoses through lay testimony and his own belief that he does not meet the
diagnostic criteria for a substance abuse disorder is meritless.
01/27/2021

While I commend the respondent for the strides he has made, I agree with the
Judiciary Commission’s recommendation that the respondent be subjected to an
extended period of JLAP monitoring. Accordingly, I would require the respondent
to execute a new five-year agreement with JLAP. Accordingly, I respectfully I concur
in part and dissent in part.
2

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2020-O-00747
I
N RE: F. STANTON HARDEE, III
J
UDICIARY COMMISSION OF LOUISIANA
C
richton, J., concurs and assigns reasons:
I
concur with the majorit y. “The primary purpose of the Code of Judicial
Conduct is to protect the public rather than discipline judges. ” In re Cannizzaro,
2005-0524 (La. 5/6/05), 901 So. 2d 1035, 1038; see also In re: Harris, 98-0570
(La.7/8/98), 713 So.2d 1138. It is noteworthy that Judge Hardee was re -elected
without opposition to an addi tional term beginning January 1, 2021. Importantly,
this re-election occurred after media coverage of his 2017 arrest and the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel proceedings that ultimately culminated in Judge Hardee’s
suspension and probation by this Court. In re: Hardee, 18-1555 (La. 11/14/18), 259
So. 3d 329. In light of the record and the public’s thus expressed confidence in Judge
Hardee’s service, I agree that the suspension and probation imposed by the majority
is appropriate.
01/27/2021

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2020-O-00747
IN RE: JUDGE F. STANTON HARDEE, III
Judiciary Commission of Louisiana
MCCALLUM, J., concurs in part, dissents in part for the reasons assigned
by Weimer, C.J.
01/27/2021