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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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
IN RE: JUDGE JOHN C. REEVES SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISHES OF CONCORDIA AND CATAHOULA STATE 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.