Blank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DANIEL JOSEPH BLANK CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

DARREL VANNOY NO. 16-00366-BAJ-RLB

ORDER

Before the Court is Respondent’s Renewed Motion to Enroll Additional

Counsel (Doc. 158), which remains partially pending before the Court. Respondent

seeks to enroll Ryan K. French of Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, LLP. Petitioner

objects to the enrollment of a private attorney on behalf of the State in this capital

post-conviction proceeding and raises concerns about the propriety of Taylor Porter’s

involvement.! (Docs. 166, 198).

In Draughn v. Vannoy, No. 2025-KD-0128 (La. 12/16/2025), the

Louisiana Supreme Court found that the Attorney General was not prohibited from

hiring private counsel, including Taylor Porter, to assist in defending the State or

State officers in habeas cases. The Louisiana Board of Ethics also determined that

the contract between the Attorney General and Taylor Porter is permissible.

(Doc. 188-1).

Attorney General's husband is a partner at Taylor Porter. (Doc. 188-1) (Board of Ethics

Opinion confirming John Murrill’s position as a partner and his 2.7% ownership interest in

Taylor Porter). Taylor Porter has contracts with the Attorney General’s Office to perform

legal work on the Attorney General’s behalf. (Doc. 166-1 to 166-7).

Petitioner correctly points out that the Court has the authority to determine

who may appear before it. See United States v. State of La., 751 F. Supp. 608, 614

(E.D. La. 1990) (“[T]his Court has .. . [the] power to resolve who may be permitted to

appear before it and... neither state statutes nor state courts can be dispositive of

any dispute over representation of a party in this federal court case.”). But keeping

in mind the importance of a party’s choice of counsel, and that “the power to control

admission ... ought to be exercised with great caution,” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,

501 U.S. 32, 48 (1991), the Court does not find it appropriate to deny Respondent his

choice of counsel.

The Court, however, remains mindful that Petitioner has raised valid concerns

about the propriety of private counsel’s involvement in capital habeas proceedings.

Accord Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 805 (1987) (recognizing

that enrollment of private counsel on the government’s behalf has at least “the

potential for private interest to influence the discharge of public duty.”); see also State

v. Tate, 171 So. 108, 112 (La. 1936) (noting that the district attorney, as

representative of the state, “seeks justice only, equal and impartial justice, and it is

as much the duty of the district attorney to see that no innocent man suffers as it is

to see that no guilty man escapes”); State v. Reed, 405 So. 3d 560, 561 (La. 2025)

(Wimer, J., concurring) (“Time and time again the United State Supreme Court has

reminded us ‘death is different’ because that sentence, once imposed, cannot be

rectified.”). The Court here, and in all cases, is charged with safeguarding “public

confidence in the judicial system [and] the legal profession,” Drumm v. Drumm,

No. 25-2223, 2026 WL 221001, at *5 (E.D. La. Jan. 28, 2026), and “is obliged to take

measures against unethical conduct occurring in connection with any proceeding

before it,” Woods v. Covington Cnty. Bank, 587 F.2d 804, 810 (5th Cir. 1976). Thus,

the Court may revisit the issue in the future if necessary.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent's Renewed Motion to Enroll

Additional Counsel (Doc. 158) is GRANTED. The following attorney will be added

as counsel on behalf of Respondent:

Ryan K. French

La. Bar Roll No. 34555

Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, LLP

ge

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this day of March, 2026

Axa

JUDGE BRIAN A. J SON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA