The opinion
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
13-920
WILLIE J. ZENO, SR.
VERSUS
LOUISIANA ATTORNEY
DISCIPLINARY BOARD
**********
APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 2013-1984, DIVISION “F”
HONORABLE GLENNON P. EVERETT, DISTRICT JUDGE
**********
JAMES T. GENOVESE
JUDGE
**********
Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, James T. Genovese, and Phyllis M.
Keaty, Judges.
AFFIRMED.
Willie J. Zeno, Sr.
133 Ambroise Street
Lafayette, Louisiana 70501
(337) 591-9411
Pro Se Appellant
James D. “Buddy” Caldwell
Attorney General
David G. Sanders
Douglas G. Swenson
Assistant Attorneys General
Louisiana Department of Justice, Litigation Division
Post Office Box 94005
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005
(225) 326-6300
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board
GENOVESE, Judge.
Plaintiff, Willie J. Zeno, Sr., appeals the trial court‟s judgment granting a
Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action filed by Defendant, Louisiana
Attorney Disciplinary Board. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mr. Zeno instituted the present action against the Louisiana Attorney
Disciplinary Board (LADB), alleging that the LADB failed to investigate a
complaint he filed with it concerning the manner in which his attorney handled a
workers‟ compensation matter on his behalf. His petition alleges that the LADB
“breached its duty with regard to matters filed by [him] causing irreparable harm
and damages.” Mr. Zeno prayed that the LADB “be found liable for damages
incurred as a result of its gross breach of duty.”
In response to Mr. Zeno‟s petition, the LADB filed a Peremptory Exception
of No Cause of Action, alleging in support thereof: (1) its entitlement to immunity
pursuant to Louisiana Supreme Court Rule 19, Section 12; (2) its entitlement to
quasi-judicial immunity; and, (3) that exclusive jurisdiction rests in the Louisiana
Supreme Court.
The LADB‟s Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action was heard and
granted by the trial court on June 24, 2013. Mr. Zeno appeals.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Mr. Zeno‟s sole assignment of error presents the issue of whether the trial
court erred in granting the LADB‟s Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
“„The standard of review for sustaining or denying a peremptory exception
of no cause of action is de novo because it raises a question of law.‟ Hebert v.
Shelton, 08-1275, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/3/09), 11 So.3d 1197, 1201.” Deshotels v.
Vill. of Pine Prairie, 11-516, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/11), 77 So.3d 1076, 1077.
“Pursuant to a de novo standard of review, an appellate court must determine
whether the trial court was legally correct or legally incorrect and gives no
additional weight to the trial court‟s determination.” Vermilion Parish Sch. Bd. v.
ConocoPhillips Co., 11-999, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/12), 83 So.3d 1234, 1237,
writs denied, 12-514, 12-515, 12-516 (La. 6/22/12), 91 So.3d 967, 968.
Louisiana Supreme Court Rule 19, entitled “Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary
Enforcement,” Section 12 (emphasis added) provides in pertinent part as follows:
Section 12. Immunity.
A. From Civil Suits. Communications to the board, hearing
committees, or disciplinary counsel relating to lawyer misconduct or
disability and testimony given in the proceedings shall be absolutely
privileged, and no lawsuit predicated thereon may be instituted against
any complainant or witness. Members of the board, members of the
hearing committees, disciplinary counsel, staff, probation monitors
and monitoring lawyers appointed pursuant to this rule or its
appendices, inventorying lawyers appointed pursuant to Section 27,
members of the Ethics Advisory Committee adopted by resolution to
the House of Delegates and approved by the Board of Governors of
the Louisiana State Bar Association on November 2, 1991 and
members of the Lawyer Advertising Advisory Service Committee
adopted by resolution to the House of Delegates and approved by the
Board of Governors of the Louisiana State Bar Association on June 9,
1995, shall be immune from suit for any conduct in the course of their
official duties or reasonably related to their official duties.
Pursuant to the foregoing, the LADB is immune from the present civil suit of
Mr. Zeno.
The LADB is also entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for its actions.
Forman v. Ours, 804 F.Supp. 864 (E.D. La. 1992). As this court noted in Menard
v. Louisiana Department of Health & Hospitals, 11-1487, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir.
4/4/12), 94 So.3d 15, 18:
Quasi[-]judicial is defined by BLACK‟S LAW DICTIONARY
1121, (5th ed.1979), as:
2
A term applied to the action, discretion, etc., of
public administrative officers or bodies, who are required
to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts,
hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a
basis for their official action, and to exercise discretion of
a judicial nature.
“Because many administrative boards and commissions have a quasi-judicial
function when they adjudicate matters like licenses, . . . it has become common to
recognize quasi-judicial immunity, equivalent to judicial immunity, for such
boards and commissions (and their individual members) for their actions taken and
decisions made in their adjudicative role.” Durousseau v. La. State Racing
Comm’n, 98-442, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/9/98), 724 So.2d 844, 846, writ denied,
99-34 (La. 2/12/99), 738 So.2d 582.
Finally, “[t]he supreme court has exclusive original jurisdiction of
disciplinary proceedings against a member of the bar. La. Const. Art. 5, § 5(B).
Singer Hutner Levine Seeman & Stuart v. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n, 378 So.2d
423 (La.1979); Herbert v. Regan, 522 So.2d 1157 (La.App. 4th Cir.1988), writ
denied, 523 So.2d 1312 (La.1988).” Alston v. Stamps, 38,628, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 2
Cir. 6/23/04), 877 So.2d 259, 263. The supreme court has “plenary power in the
area of disciplinary proceedings[,]” and “Supreme Court Rule 19 establishes the
applicable parameters and grants broad jurisdiction over complaints against
attorneys.” Id. “Thus, the handling of complaints concerning attorneys is a quasi-
judicial function under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Louisiana
Supreme Court. See, Herbert v. Regan, supra; Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v.
Chatelain, 513 So.2d 1178 (La.1987).” Id.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court granting the
Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action filed on behalf of the Louisiana
3
Attorney Disciplinary Board is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to
Willie J. Zeno, Sr.
AFFIRMED.
This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform
Rules―Courts of Appeal, Rule 2─16.3.
4