# In Re Joyce Nanine McCOOL

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · June 30, 2015 · 172 So. 3d 1058

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9808868

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re: Joyce Nanine McCool
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** June 30, 2015
- **Citations:** 172 So. 3d 1058; 2015 La. LEXIS 1494
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Guidry
- **Judges:** Knoll, Weimer, Guidry, Crichton, Cannella
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9808868

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the First Amendment did not protect a lawyer from sanctions for waging an online campaign in which she encouraged others to engage in ex parte communications with the judges presiding over her client’s case
- noting that it is well established that "those matters not expressly granted in a judgment or order of a court are considered denied” and citing M.J. Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 07-2371, p. 12 (La.7/1/08), 998 So.2d 16, 26, for the proposition that "relief sought presume…

## Opinion text

GUIDRY, Justice,
concurs in part and dissents in part.
hi concur that respondent should be sanctioned, but I dissent as to majority’s imposition of disbarment and I would impose a suspension of three years.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9808868. Public record. Not legal advice.