(Citizens for a New Louisiana) — Lawfare is the new game in American politics. Like any game, if you’re going to play, you’d better learn the rules. It’s also high-stakes. But above all, it’s a game of process, not just outcome. So let’s break down how it works—and why playing along isn’t optional anymore.

‘Tit for Tat’ Lawfare

In his essay “Why ‘Tit for Tat’ Lawfare Is Necessary” for Chronicles Magazine, Clifford Angell Bates, Jr. argues that the progressive Left has weaponized the legal system to attack its political enemies—most famously, former President Donald Trump. This tactic is transformative in repurposing a tool of justice into a weapon of politics. It erodes public confidence in the courts and rebrands the justice system into a weapon of political suppression. Even when the target is ultimately successful in court, the process drags on for years, costing tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Believe it or not, that shows the Left’s goal isn’t victory in court. This tactic weaponizes the courts to bankrupt and distract their most capable opponents through a harrowing experience. Bates proposes a symmetrical response. Borrowing from Robert Axelrod’s The Evolution of Cooperation, he suggests imposing real costs on bad-faith legal attackers to reestablish mutual restraint.

Ethics Complaint Filed Against Robert Judge

Claire Taylor at The Advocate recently reported that an ethics complaint was filed against Library Board Member Robert Judge, less than 24 hours after the complaint was emailed. The leak raises legal concerns of its own. Louisiana R.S. 42:1141.4 makes disclosing ethics complaints or investigations without the accused’s written permission a misdemeanor punishable by a $2,000 fine and a year in jail. So, who tipped off the press?

The complaint alleges Judge used his board position to influence a vote that might indirectly benefit him: specifically, raising money for his legal defense. According to LCG Communications Director Jamie Boudreaux, these hard-Left disruptors have cost LCG nearly $200,000 in legal fees related to the lawsuit, including $64,216 on behalf of Judge and fellow board member Daniel Kelly. That money likely comes straight out of the Public Library Budget, which could ultimately affect the size and quality of the Northeast Regional Branch construction, which these same activists purport to support.

So why does Robert Judge need to raise money now?

Proposed Settlement Leaves a Man Behind

Because the proposed settlement would dismiss all parties except Robert Judge in his personal capacity, the Library Board rejected the deal. After all, any of them could be the Left’s next target. But for Judge’s critics, it’s a calculated move. They’re losing in court, so they offer a cheap out, hoping to isolate and bury their primary target in a likely excessive cost of defense.

The plaintiffs claim legal fees of $100,000, but Tulane Law Center is handling the suit. Tulane is taxpayer-funded and likely operating under a contingency agreement. That $100,000 figure is inflated, probably based on law student billing hours, not actual payments. This contingency model is how the ACLU operates. However, a significant difference is that the ACLU isn’t getting its operational budget paid by the Louisiana Treasury like Tulane.

There are no fees if there’s no payout, so keeping Robert Judge on the hook is the only shot at a win. Remember, the strategy isn’t winning outright in court; it’s bleeding their most capable opponents. If anything, the taxpayers have footed the bill (on both sides) and stand to again if this settlement strategy emboldens similar future campaigns. There is a catch: if Judge loses, he may owe Tulane’s legal fees. But if he wins, Tulane’s clients may owe his. The stakes are personal for Robert Judge but not so much for taxpayer-funded Tulane University.

A Dangerous Precedent

While LCG taking a settlement may seem like a “good deal” fiscally, it is rare for a settlement to be consummated under circumstances that would leave a single party to fend for themselves. Typically, insurance or municipal self-insurance covers all officials equally. But LCG is now picking and choosing who gets defended.

State law requires indemnification for state officials but not local ones. Still, it’s been the standard practice of Lafayette Consolidated Government (LCG) to defend employees and officials acting in good faith.

LCG is flirting with setting a dangerous precedent. Today, it’s a library board member. Tomorrow it could be a police officer. How does it pick and choose what employees and officials to defend and which ones to throw to the wolves? This is a situation law enforcement officers are all too familiar with. Will political semantics weigh in on whether my employer will put up a proper defense for me? What if my employer disagrees with my actions, although justified and legal? Will they cast me aside for political convenience?

Is LCG Moving Toward Not Defending the Justified Actions of Its Officials?

LCG regularly defends lawsuits, which have cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. This is nothing new. They even engaged in legal adventures at a hefty cost to the taxpayers. Homewood and Lake Farm come to mind.

In addition to LCG, the Library Board of Control and its officials, Plaintiffs Lynette Mejia and Melanie Brevis, sued Sheriff Mark Garber, Deputy Rusty Santiny, and Deputy Sara Orgeron for their role in removing disruptors from a public meeting. In his legal pleadings, Mark Garber has argued that Robert Judge was justified in his actions.

“Defendants did not violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to free speech because in a limited public forum, such as a Public Board meeting, reasonable restrictions may be placed on speech. The Defendants reacted reasonably to the request by Defendant Judge to remove Ms. Brevis as he viewed her conduct disruptive of the Board meeting, which he has great discretion to do.”

Can you imagine if Sheriff Garber were to enter into a settlement dismissing himself from the case, but not Deputy Santiny and Deputy Orgeron? Then, to take it further, tell the two deputies they must pay for their own legal defense. That is essentially what is happening with Robert Judge.

Historical Practices

LCG has a well-established historical practice of defending its officials and employees. Their legal counsel has even referred to this as a precedent. While this can appear to be tricky territory, LCG’s official legal counsel has defended other “historical practices” that pertain to themselves, even when those practices are a clear violation of the Home Rule Charter. So, are we once again wading into arbitrary and capricious waters?

Take Section 4-01(B), which says the Mayor-President sets salaries for department directors. Yet when asked for the salary of the Legal Director, the response was:

“There are no records responsive to your request as the Director of the Legal Department is not a full time employee and, thus, has no “salary.”

The engagement of a private lawyer (as a non-employee) to serve as the Director of the Legal Department of LCG has been the universal practice since 1996 when the Charter was adopted.”

This is an issue that has transcended multiple administrations. At another juncture, we have been told:

“I know you have concerns about the historical practice of LCG engaging a private attorney in a non-employee capacity to serve as the City-Parish Attorney, but aside from legislation, a practice repeated over a period of time also has the force of law and thus, is legally permissible.”

In other words, we do what we want, and if we can get away with it long enough, it is permissible.

The Cost of Politics

Under this arrangement, Patrick S. Ottinger, APLC (not the individual Patrick Ottinger, but his firm) received $558,465.19 from LCG for 2024 alone. Meanwhile, another firm that Ottinger has been associated with, which even bears his name, Ottinger-Hebert, was paid another $346,707.99. Combined, that’s almost a million dollars for a single year. No worries, we have been told:

“Also, out of an abundance of caution, Mr. Ottinger has recused himself from the approval of any billing for the work of the Law Firm and its attorneys as such billing is approved directly by the Administration and paid directly to Ottinger Hebert, L.L.C. Again, Mr. Ottinger does not share in those billings and is not a part of that approval process.”

Doesn’t that make you feel much better? In light of these payments in 2024 alone, does all this hand-wringing about $60,000 (over multiple years) make sense? This settlement can’t be about saving money.

LCG’s decision on the Judge settlement could affect far more than just the library board. If accepted, it sets a precedent that defending your empowered representatives is optional, even when they act within the bounds of their duties.

That sends a chilling message to every police officer, public servant, and board member in Lafayette Parish: your job is only safe if your politics are.