RSS - Posts
Judicial discipline in 2007
In 2007, as a result of state judicial discipline proceedings, nine judges were removed from office (including one former judge). Six judges resigned or retired in lieu of discipline pursuant to agreements with judicial commissions that were made public. 104 additional judges (or former judges in approximately 15 cases) were publicly sanctioned in 2007. In 42 of those cases, the discipline was imposed pursuant to the consent of the judge. (These figures do not include pending recommendations or decisions pending on appeal.)
There were 19 suspensions without pay, ranging from one week to 18 months (with six months stayed with conditions); one suspension also included a public reprimand and $1000 fine; one also included a public reprimand and $1500 fine. In addition, there were 24 public censures; 22 public admonishments; 30 public reprimands (one reprimand also included a $500 fine, one also included a $3500 civil penalty); two cease and desist orders; three attorney discipline cases involving former judges for conduct as judges; and four other public dispositions (a private reprimand that was made public and three cases in which misconduct was found or stipulated to but no sanction was imposed).
The 2007 cases illustrate the variety of misconduct, both on and off the bench, for which judges may be sanctioned. As in other years, many cases involved discourteous demeanor in the courtroom, such as becoming angry with a litigant, treating attorneys in a sarcastic and belittling manner, using religious and ethnic slurs, and abusing the contempt power. Delay, administrative failures, and offensive language in dealing with staff also resulted in discipline for several judges. As always, ex parte communications (independent investigations or conversations with parties, attorneys, an Army recruiter, an arresting officer, witnesses, a landlord, or defendants’ relatives, for example) and failure to disqualify (from cases involving a judge’s attorney, a neighbor with whom the judge had poor relationship, or relatives, for example) also formed the basis for judicial discipline sanctions for several judges. Eight judges were sanctioned following driving while intoxicated offenses, while four former judges were disciplined based on criminal convictions for domestic violence, tampering with a utility company meter, failing to file federal income tax returns, or common law misconduct in office.
As usual, judges’ failure to resist the temptation to assist friends and relatives by using the power or prestige of office to fix tickets or ask for leniency from police, prosecutors, and other judges resulted in numerous sanctions in 2007. Less typical conduct sanctioned in 2007 included, by different judges, pushing counsel; assaulting an off-duty police officer and verbally abusing the officer’s wife; pursuing a defendant who had fled from the courtroom; telephoning a defendant’s alleged drug dealer in open court; directing a mother in a custody case to lower her pants in the courtroom to view a wound; approving a plea agreement that sent a defendant to another state; and having a domestic violence victim’s facial injuries photographed. Charitable fund-raising in the courthouse, including direct solicitation of attorneys, and an adulterous affair, including sexual intercourse in the courthouse, also led to discipline of two judges in 2007.
Many cases involved egregious handling of cases or a pattern of abuse of discretion, for example, issuing judgments without conducting a hearing or providing for service of process; finding unrepresented defendants had violated their probation without following due process requirements; increasing or threatening to increase defendants’ sentences for asking questions or offering defenses; informing unrepresented defendants at arraignment that their only choices were to plead guilty or accept diversion; failing to advise criminal defendants of constitutional and procedural rights; failing to accept guilty pleas in accordance with court rules; and following a practice that appeared to coerce criminal defendants to waive their right to jury trial. In many cases, the judge’s misconduct was exacerbated by failure to respond to inquiries by the conduct commission, making false or misleading statements to the commission, retaliating against the complainant, or attempting to influence the testimony of a witness.
The Judicial Conduct Reporter, a quarterly published by the Center for Judicial Ethics, reports developments in judicial discipline, tracks changes in codes of conduct, and analyzes recent decisions and advisory opinions. The fall 2007 issue has articles on campaign supporters and disqualification, the judicial accountability system in Bosnia and Herzegovina, developments following Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, and assessing complaints about judicial conduct and summaries of recent advisory opinions on teaching by judges. An annual subscription costs $32 ($36 foreign). A single issue of the Reporter may be ordered for $9 ($10 foreign) plus postage and handling.
AJS and Center publications can be ordered on-line at www.ajs.org. Click here for more information.
Dated January 23, 2008
Click here to go back to the previous articles page.
