ON RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCIPLINE FROM THE JUDICIARY COMMISSION OF LOUISIANA
This matter comes before the Court on the recommendation of the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana (“Commission”), pursuant to La. Const. Ann. art. V, § 25(C), that Kirk Granier, District Judge of the 29th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Charles, be publicly censured and ordered to pay the cost of the prosecution of these proceedings. For the reasons that follow, we adopt the recommendations of the Commission, publicly censure Judge Gra-nier, and approve the reimbursements suggested.
The parties stipulated to the underlying uncontested facts necessary to determine whether there was a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Louisiana Constitution. We summarize those pertinent facts.
Judge Granier was first elected in 1996 to the district court bench, assumed office on January 1, 1997, was reelected in the fall of 2002, and has served continuously since that time. Between February 1999 and June 2002, Judge Granier hired his girlfriend, Tanya LeBlanc, a registered nurse with twenty-three years of nursing experience, as an independent contractor to review and summarize medical records for nineteen cases in his court.1 Judge Granier authorized the Clerk of Court to pay LeBlanc, from the Judicial Expense Fund, an amount totaling $13,860.50 for | j>the work LeBlanc performed for the court.2 Judge Granier also authorized the clerk’s office to pay Medical-Legal Consulting Institute, Inc. $1,299 from the Judicial Expense Fund for LeBlanc’s tuition to attend a week-long legal nurse consultant course in Houston, Texas and to pay $1,022.78 to cover LeBlanc’s hotel expenses, a per diem of $40, and the airfare *419for her attendance at the Houston seminar.
After considering the formal charge3 and the evidence adduced, the Commission concluded the Office of Special Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that although LeBlane was qualified to do the work she was paid, Judge Granier nevertheless allowed a social relationship to influence his judicial conduct when he hired his girlfriend with whom he was romantically involved to work as an independent contractor for him. Moreover, Judge Granier unwittingly enriched Le-Blanc when he used taxpayer money to allow LeBlane to become a certified legal nurse consultant. This certification gave LeBlane a credential she could use for additional services to the legal community and Judge Granier provided this benefit to LeBlane in violation of Canon 2B that forbids use of the prestige of the judicial office for the benefit of another. The Commission further found Judge Granier created the appearance of impropriety when he retained his girlfriend’s services as an independent contractor and paid her with taxpayer funds. Although Judge Granier stressed he never intended to violate the ethical canons, the Commission noted that this Court held in In re Hunter, 02-1975 (La.8/19/02), 823 So.2d 325, that intention Ris not required for the imposition of judicial discipline. Finally, the Commission found that by committing misconduct related to his official duty, Judge Granier also violated La. Const. Ann. Art. V, § 25C. It found his conduct was persistent and public, prejudicial to the administration of justice, and brought the judicial office into disrepute. Based upon its findings, the Commission recommended Judge Granier be publicly censured. In addition, the Commission recommended that Judge Granier reimburse his court’s Judicial Expense Fund the amount of $2,321.78 and pay to the Commission the amount of $448 in hard costs.
On January 14, 2005, Judge Granier and the Office of Special Counsel filed a motion with this Court seeking to waive briefing and oral argument and to have us consider the case based on the two-volume record developed before the Commission. Judge Granier further stated he accepted the Commission’s disciplinary recommendation. Although we initially granted the parties’ joint motion, we recalled our order, requested briefing, and set the case for oral argument so that we could more fully explore the conduct of Judge Granier.
After carefully exploring the record, we are fully satisfied with the Judiciary Commission’s investigation of this matter and its recommendation on the appropriate sanction.4 While Judge Granier recognized the appearance of impropriety after his conduct was brought to his attention, we note no other harm. We further find LeBlane was fully qualified as a registered nurse with twenty-three years of practice to review and summarize the medical evidence in the nineteen cases at issue and did indeed perform the work for Judge Granier. Moreover, we are thor*420oughly convinced LeBlanc’s involvement in these matters of litigation did not impact Judge Granier’s adjudicatory function. The record shows that Judge Granier ceased LeBlanc’s | employment as an independent contractor as soon as the perception of impropriety was brought to his attention. Finally, it is abundantly clear that Judge Granier is remorseful for any appearance of impropriety that occurred and this conduct is not likely to reoccur.
DECREE
For the reasons assigned, it is ordered that Judge Kirk Granier be publicly censured for violating Canons 1, 2A and 2B, and 3B4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. It is further ordered that Judge Kirk Gra-nier reimburse the Judicial Expense Fund of the 29th Judicial District Court $2,321.78 and the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana $448.
JOHNSON, J., concurs.
KIMBALL and TRAYLOR, JJ., dissent and would impose a greater sanction.