In Re: Judge John C. Reeves Seventh Judicial District Court Parishes of Concordia and Catahoula State of Louisiana

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #018

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 1st day of May, 2026 are as follows:

BY Griffin, J.:

2025-O-01587 IN RE: JUDGE JOHN C. REEVES SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT PARISHES OF CONCORDIA AND CATAHOULA STATE OF
LOUISIANA

SUSPENSION IMPOSED. SEE OPINION.

Weimer, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns reasons.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2025-O-01587

IN RE: JUDGE JOHN C. REEVES
SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISHES OF CONCORDIA AND CATAHOULA
STATE OF LOUISIANA

Judiciary Commission of Louisiana

GRIFFIN, J.

This matter arises from the recommendation of the Judiciary Commission of

Louisiana (“the Commission”) that Judge John C. Reeves be suspended without pay

for thirty days for accepting a $100 bill from a litigant for whom Judge Reeves

signed a judgment of possession in a succession case. After considering the facts,

circumstances, and applicable law, we reject the recommendation of the

Commission and impose a suspension for twenty days without pay.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Judge Reeves became a judge of the Seventh Judicial District Court, parishes

of Concordia and Catahoula, in January of 2015 and has served continuously since

that time. An investigation arose after an anonymous complaint was filed. The

Commission’s Notice of Hearing alleges that Judge Reeves violated Canons 1, 2,

2(A), 2(B), 6(B)(1) of the code of Judicial Conduct, as well as Article V § 25 (C) of

the Louisiana Constitution based on the following count: Judge Reeves accepted a

$100 dollar bill from a litigant in a succession matter after signing a judgment of

possession in that same succession proceeding, which awarded that litigant the

majority of the estate at issue.

 Judge Allison H. Penzato of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, appointed as Justice pro tempore,

sitting for the vacancy in the First District.

Judge Reeves and the Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”) subsequently

entered stipulations of facts and conclusion of law, in which the parties agreed as to

all material facts and that Judge Reeves violated the Canons and La. Const. art. V, §

25 (C) as charged. The Commission accepted the stipulations and dispensed with the

services of a hearing officer. The Commission recommended that Judge Reeves be

suspended for thirty days without pay and that he be ordered to reimburse the

Commission $3,121.53 in hard costs.1 The matter was set on this Court’s docket for

oral argument under LASC Rule XXIII, § 14. The Court subsequently granted a joint

motion by the parties waiving briefing and oral argument.

The following facts were presented to the Commission:

Judge Reeves served on the Seventh Judicial District Court, which is

comprised of two parishes, Concordia and Catahoula, with courthouses located in

both parishes. It contains two divisions – A and B. Judge Reeves served Division B.

Judge Kathy Johnson served Division A. The two judges would alternate between

the two courthouses.

On Friday June 2, 2023, Judge Reeves received a cell phone call from Tim

Tomlinson, an individual he knew from the community. Mr. Tomlinson asked if

Judge Reeves would sign some documents for him. After speaking with Mr.

Tomlinson, Judge Reeves called Julie Lipsey, then the judicial assistant for Judge

Johnson. Judges Reeves asked Ms. Lipsey to stay at the courthouse during her lunch

break as someone would be bringing papers for him to sign.

Mr. Tomlinson met Judge Reeves in chambers where he presented the Judge

with a “Petition for Probate of a Notarial or Statutory Will and for Possession” in his

mother’s name and asked Judge Reeves to sign a judgment of possession. The

petition had been prepared by an attorney and signed and approved by all heirs. The

1
The commission’s recommendation was unanimous, with one member, retired Justice Chet D.
Traylor, recused.
2

petition had not yet been filed with the Clerk of Court and had not been allotted to

Judge Reeves. The testimony of Mr. Tomlinson and Ms. Lipsey establishes that

Judge Reeves did not carefully and thoroughly review the pleadings before he signed

the judgment of possession. Judge Reeves testified that he did read the pleadings

before signing them. Nevertheless, the judgment of possession was in accordance

with the decedent’s will, and the parties have stipulated that there was no apparent

reason the judgment should not have been signed. The matter was then filed in the

clerk’s office in Catahoula Parish and subsequently allotted to Judge Reeves.

After Judge Reeves signed the judgment of possession, Mr. Tomlinson

handed him a folded $100 bill and told him to use it to take his family out to lunch.

Judge Reeves accepted the money from Mr. Tomlinson in the visible presence of

Ms. Lipsey. Mr. Tomlinson testified that he always carries cash on him, and that he

wanted to show his appreciation to Judge Reeves for waiting for him at the

courthouse to sign the document. Mr. Tomlinson did not believe Judge Reeves had

accepted money from litigants before. Ms. Lipsey did not think the $100 bill was a

quid pro quo for Judge Reeves’ signing the judgment of possession, nor did she

believe the judge was that kind of person. Ms. Lipsey testified that she reported the

incident to others at the court, including Judge Johnson, and that the situation

factored into her decision to end her employment with the court. Judge Reeves

asserted that he refused the money multiple times but then accepted it after telling

Mr. Tomlinson he would donate it to church. This testimony was inconsistent with

that of Ms. Lipsey. Mr. Tomlinson did not testify about whether Judge Reeves said

he would give the money to church. The parties stipulated that if called, Ms. Lipsey

would have testified that Judge Reeves did not state he was going to give the money

to church. According to Ms. Lipsey, Judge Reeves first said “no” when offered the

money, then Mr. Tomlinson said, “lunch is on me,” and Judge Reeves took the

money. Judge Reeves elaborated that he took the $100 bill so that he could be “done

3

with it” and “get on about [his] business.” Judge Reeves asserted that he donated the

money to church when he attended services the following Sunday. However, Judge

Reeves acknowledged that he typically gives $100 at church each week and did not

give $200 that week.

DISCUSSION

The issue before this Court is whether we should accept the recommendation

of the Commission and suspend Judge Reeves for thirty days without pay. The

parties agree as to all relevant facts and that Judges Reeves’ conduct violated Canons

1, 2, 2(A), 2(B), and 6(B)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as La. Const.

art. V, § 25 (C). The only dispute is the discipline to be imposed.

In imposing discipline, we are guided by the 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 misconduct; (b) the nature, extent, and frequency

of occurrence of the acts of the 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 recognized

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 the misconduct has upon the

integrity of and respect for the judiciary; and, (j) the extent to which the judge

exploited his position to satisfy his personal desires.

(a) whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or evidences a pattern of
misconduct and (b) the nature, extent, and frequency of occurrence of the acts of
the misconduct

The misconduct in this matter was isolated. However, it severely tainted the

integrity of the judiciary.

4

(c) whether the misconduct occurred in or out of the courtroom and (d)
whether the misconduct occurred in the judge’s official capacity or in his private
life

The misconduct in this matter occurred out of the courtroom but at the

courthouse, when Judge Reeves was acting in his official capacity.

(e) whether the judge has acknowledged or recognized that the acts
occurred and (f) whether the judge has evidenced an effort to change or modify his
conduct

Judge Reeves stipulated to all of the facts and the ethical violations in the

Notice of Hearing. He asserted multiple times that he took full responsibility for his

actions, expressed regret and remorse, and assured the Commission that he has never

done anything similar in the past, but he did not satisfactorily explain why he did not

immediately try to return the money to Mr. Tomlinson or self-report his ethical

violation. He also cited purported mitigating facts that were not ultimately

corroborated, such as that he thoroughly read the documents before signing, called

Mr. Tomlinson’s lawyer before signing to verify the documents and their allotment,

and told Mr. Tomlinson that he would give the money to church. However, we agree

with the Commission that Judge Reeves’ remorse is sincere and that his testimony

did not negate his agreement to the stipulated facts. See In re: Cresap, 06-1242, pp.

21-22 (La. 10/17/06), 940 So. 2d 624, 637.

(g) the length of service on the bench

Judge Reeves assumed judicial office in January of 2015 and has served

continuously since. As an experienced judge, he should have known better than to

accept what amounted to a gratuity from a litigant for performing his judicial duties.

(h) whether there have been prior complaints about this judge

Judge Reeves has no prior reportable history of judicial misconduct.

(i) the effect the misconduct has upon the integrity of and respect for the
judiciary

5

Judge Reeves’ acceptance of money from a litigant greatly harmed the

integrity of and respect for the judiciary. Rather than steadfastly refuse the money

and use the opportunity to demonstrate integrity on behalf of the entire judiciary,

Judge Reeves’ corrosive act of accepting a ‘hundred-dollar handshake’ from a

litigant after agreeing to meet him at the courthouse to sign a judgment perpetuated

the pervasive negative stereotype of a corrupt judiciary. As an elected official and

public servant, a judge should not accept a monetary gratuity for performing those

duties with which he has been entrusted.

Even though there was no quid pro quo, Judge Reeves allowed himself to be

seen as a judge who offers special treatment to those willing and able to pay for it.

This is especially true considering that the judgment granted Mr. Tomlinson the bulk

of the estate, Judge Reeves ensured that the succession would be allotted to him by

signing the judgment before any documents had been filed with the clerk’s office,

and the other two people present testified that Judge Reeves flipped through the

documents to the signature page and did not carefully review them. Moreover, the

impact on the integrity of the judiciary is apparent by the actions of the sole witness

to the exchange of money, who was so appalled by the act that she reported it to

others, which eventually resulted in an anonymous complaint to the Commission,

and ultimately led her to leave her position with the court.

(j) the extent to which the judge exploited his position to satisfy his personal
desires

While the parties agreed that he donated the $100 bill to his church, Judge

Reeves testified that he regularly does so and at no time did he donate two hundred

dollars to his church. Therefore, Judge Reeves took advantage of his position when

he improperly accepted a monetary benefit for performing his judicial duties.

The discipline to be imposed depends on the circumstance of each case and

the gravity of the offenses involved, with consideration given to any aggravating and

6

mitigating circumstances. In re: Ellender, 04-2123, p. 13 (La. 12/13/04), 889 So.2d

225, 233. The Commission found that Judge Reeves did not act in bad faith.

However, judges “may also, through negligence or ignorance not amounting to bad

faith, behave in a manner prejudicial to the administration of justice so as to bring

the judicial office into disrepute.” In re: Hunter, 02-1975 p.16 (La. 8/19/02), 823

So.2d 325, 336. Judge Reeves’ misconduct was a single isolated incident that

nevertheless seriously tainted the integrity and reputation of the judiciary. The

evidence shows that Judge Reeves is remorseful and has accepted full responsibility

for his actions. Further, while we agree with the Commission that suspension is

appropriate, Judge Reeves waived any defensive briefing or argument at this Court,

which evidences further acceptance and remorse. As such, a less severe suspension

is appropriate in this matter. Compare In re: Free, 14-1828 (La. 12/9/14), 158 So.

3d 771 (judge suspended without pay for thirty days for, among other misconduct,

accepting an invitation to an all-expenses-paid trip on a private jet to a hunting ranch

from attorneys in a case before him; there was no evidence or allegation that Judge

Free’s acceptance of the invitation influenced any of his decision-making in the case)

with In re: Daghir, 657 A.2d 1032, 1033 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. 1995) (judge suspended

for seven days for accepting football tickets from the defendant in a divorce

proceeding before him). Considering the Chaisson factors and aforementioned

jurisprudence, this Court imposes a suspension of twenty days without pay and

reimbursements of hard costs to the Commission in the amount of $3,121.53.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that Judge Reeves shall be suspended

from office without salary for twenty days. Judges Reeves is also ordered to pay the

Commission $3,121.53 in hard costs.

SUSPENSION IMPOSED

7

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2025-O-01587

IN RE: JUDGE JOHN C. REEVES
SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISHES OF CONCORDIA AND CATAHOULA
STATE OF LOUISIANA

Judiciary Commission of Louisiana

WEIMER, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

The record supports, and I believe this to be, an isolated and unfortunate,

one-time incident. The Judge has never been sanctioned previously, and

undisputedly, he initially rejected the payment, accepting the gratuity only after the

individual persisted in his request that the Judge take the money. Although the

testimony of the Judge and the witnesses diverged in some respects, there was no

finding that the Judge was untruthful, unlike the findings in other recent cases.

Contrast In re: Sims, 25-01449 (La. 3/6/26), ___ So.3d ___, 2026 WL 632413

(Weimer, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); In re: Foxworth-Roberts,

25-01127 (La. 12/11/25), 424 So.3d 650, 425 So.3d 120; In re: Medley, 25-00879

(La. 10/24/25), 421 So.3d 890 (Weimer, C.J., additionally concurring); see also In re:

Colbert, 25-00994 (La. 12/11/25), 424 So.3d 620 (Weimer, C.J., concurring). The

Judge stipulated to the facts, his testimony did not vitiate the stipulation, and his

remorse, according to the Judiciary Commission before which he testified in person,

was sincere. The Judiciary Commission found the Judge did not act in bad faith.

I agree with the majority that this action adversely reflects on the judiciary as

a whole. A judge is a public servant who should not be self-serving. The vast,

overwhelming number of judges seek the office to serve the public. Judge Reeves

was doing so when this incident occurred. The gratuity was offered, not to influence

the Judge, but out of appreciation for the assistance the Judge provided to someone

he knew. The Judge now accepts full responsibility for what he did and did not argue

otherwise. Nevertheless, this exchange reflects poorly on the Judge and the judiciary

and represents a missed opportunity to demonstrate the integrity of an individual

judge and the judiciary as a whole.

I believe a lesser sanction, which is accompanied by copious professional and

personal embarrassment, would adequately serve the ends of justice.1 I, therefore,

respectfully dissent regarding the sanction and otherwise concur.

1
My practical advice is not to accept anything from anyone and to actually look a “gift horse in the
mouth” and reject it, citing the Code of Judicial Conduct as a source to extricate oneself from
seeming to be ungrateful.

2