Wave Maker

• If this sort of stuff intrigues you, go read the facts alleged against Judge Markey. they're really pretty hair-curling.
  
  Judge Markey's position was this:
  
  Judge Markey does not dispute the impropriety of his conduct, nor that a sanction is warranted. He contends, however, that the severity of the sanction recommended by the Commission is unjustified, and unfair, in view of this court's precedents, and because of certain factors, among them his lack of
  intent to influence any aspect of the Macedo cases, and his reputation, contrition, financial situation, and reformed conduct since the Commission's investigation. He also submits that we may not order a suspension without pay because such a sanction essentially equates to a removal, which, if imposed by the judiciary, is unconstitutional.
  
  Despite concluding that Judge Markey's conduct was atrocious and indeed did violate the Canons of Ethics in the alleged manner, they determined that an appropriate sanction was a public reprimand and a three month suspension.

There was no disciplinary activity during 1999-2000.

Annual Report 2001:

• A litigant complained that a judge was rude, arrogant and disrespectful, showed gender bias and prejudgment, would not let his attorney speak, gave the idea he had already made up his mind, and acted like an advocate for the opposing party. The investigation substantiated all of the allegations except those of gender bias and being an advocate for one party. The judge and the Commission entered into an Agreed Disposition in which the judge was privately reprimanded for again displaying a pattern of conduct for which he had previously been admonished by the Commission.

• Several complaints filed against a judge alleged that he failed to follow the law, treated litigants and attorneys in a discourteous manner, and failed to give them full opportunity to be heard according to law. Investigation of these complaints supported the allegations of misconduct. ... Shortly before the Hearing was to begin, the judge and the Commission reached agreement on an Informal Adjustment which made a Hearing unnecessary. The terms of the Agreed Disposition which were made public by means of a press release included a reprimand, a three-month unpaid suspension, and a requirement that the judge attend two weeks of educational training at his own expense. The terms also included monitoring of the judge by the Commission for two years following his suspension.

I think you get the point. The Commission deals only with allegations of misconduct, not claims that a judge is particularly awful. That happens, you know. Every litigator knows it. Some people are spectacular lawyers that just happen to make particularly lousy judges. There has to be a means of reviewing their performance.

I do not think, however, that judges should be reviewed by the electorate via elections. That is an absurd notion, notwithstanding the many states where it is employed. A judge must feel assured that he is free to apply the law to the facts found and make a reasoned decision in accordance with both, no matter how unpopular the result may be to the public at large. Popularity of outcome is not an appropriate benchmark for retention of one's robes.

But with the current system, a judge may be reversed on appeal ad nauseam -- indicating some serious deficiency of performance -- and be immune from any discipline whatsoever, short of some measure of "professional development" or further training. But again, if a judge is particularly recalcitrant in accepting this "training," there is no means of removing him or her from the bench. How many middle-aged, life-tenured judges do you think are amenable to re-education?

Healey's proposal, it seems, could find a solution "half-way:" An independent commission, chartered to review the performances of all trial judges at some interval to insure that performance, as a whole, is consistent with the type of integrity and competence that the citizens should be entitled to expect.

Posted by: Wave Maker / 10:05 AM/ |