That’s an obvious take-away from the recently issued 2016
annual report of the state’s Commission on Judicial Conduct, which has been
keeping tabs on judges for nearly 40 years.
The unpaid, nine-member commission has a threefold mission: to enforce the standards set forth in detail in
a written code of conduct; to promote public confidence in the judicial
branch of government; and, to preserve the integrity of the judicial
process
In 2016, the commission received a total of 252
complaints; of that number, 62 were “docketed for investigation or preliminary
inquiry.”
Overall in 2016, the commission officially looked into 75 complaints and
disposed of 61 of them. And 59 of the 61
disposed cases were dismissed with a finding of no misconduct. Judges had a success rating of nearly 97%!
In four of the 59 no-misconduct dismissals, however, the
commission “expressed concern to the judge regarding future conduct.” If I
understand, this meant that each of the four had messed up, but not so badly that
they crossed the line to misconduct land.
The commission basically warned them and said we’ll be watching you.
The remaining two among the 61 disposed cases were ones
the commission had subjected to “Informal Adjustment or Agreed Disposition,”
had been monitoring, and had decided to close.
Here’s the excerpt from the report explaining what that means:
Here’s the excerpt from the report explaining what that means:
“An Agreed Disposition may take the form of an Informal
Adjustment in which the Commission informs or admonishes the judge that certain
conduct is or may be cause for discipline.
This form of disposition requires agreement by the judge to the terms of
Informal Adjustment. In most cases, this
type of disposition has a valuable, favorable effect on a judge’s conduct. [Blogger comment: As do near-death experiences.]
“The terms for such a disposition usually include a
period of monitoring by the Commission and conditions imposed on the judge that
are designed to prevent a repetition of the misconduct. The conditions may include counseling,
education, assignment of a mentor judge, monitoring by the Commission for a
specified period of time, voluntary retirement, or other appropriate
conditions.”
Of the 252 total complaints against judges in 2016, the
most frequent complaint was that a judge had denied someone a full opportunity
to be heard. That was alleged in 42
instances. The most frequent complaints
after that were inappropriate demeanor (39), bias or prejudice (35), and
disagreement with decisions and rulings (24).
The most complaints, 30, were filed against judges in the
Probate and Family Court, not surprising when you consider that’s where people fight relentlessly over divorces, properties and wills. The second highest number of complaints, 17,
was inspired by district court judges – not really high, considering there are
more district court judges, 158, than any other kind.
The second largest contingent of judges is found in our
superior courts, where there are 82. And, all told, we have 411 judges serving in nine separate court divisions, headed by the seven justices of the supreme judicial court.
In his introduction to the 2016 report, Howard V. Neff,
III, Executive Director of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, said, “Many
complaints are filed with the Commission by parties who are disappointed with
how their cases came out and believe the judge was not ‘fair’ or that his or
decision was wrong.”
Neff continued, “Hardly a judge in Massachusetts escapes
such claims over the course of his or her career on the bench, and the
Commission’s examination of complaints regarding a judge’s decision is limited
to allegations that a judge clearly violated the Code, or made a legal decision
in ‘bad faith’ or based on a corrupt motive.
If a party alleges that a judge has misinterpreted the law or evidence,
the proper forum for a remedy includes the appellate court but does not include
the Commission.”
No comments:
Post a Comment