Judicial
Discipline
Neighboring
states take different
approaches to allegations against justices
By
Jack Zemlicka
jack.zemlicka@wislawjournal.com
Sept.
10, 2007
Neighboring
states'
disciplinary bodies |
Michigan
- Judicial Tenure Commission Five
lower court judges, consisting of one appellate court judge, one circuit court
judge, one probate, one municipal and one elected by the State Bar, as well as
two attorneys elected by the State Bar and two laypersons appointed by the governor.
Complaints are investigated and disciplinary recommendations are submitted by
the commission to the Supreme Court which issues a final decision. |
Illinois
- Illinois Courts Commission Composed
of one Supreme Court justice, two Appellate Court judges, two Circuit Court judges
and two citizens, the commission has the authority, after notice from the Judicial
Inquiry Board and public hearing, to discipline judges for willful misconduct
in office. |
Minnesota
- Board on Judicial Standards An
independent state agency comprised of one appellate court judge, three trial court
judges, two attorneys who have practiced at least 10 years and four non-lawyer
members appointed by the governor with consent of the state Senate. The board
receives and acts upon complaints about Minnesota judges for judicial misconduct
or wrongdoing and submits recommendations to the Supreme Court for final decision. |
With
the Wisconsin Judicial Commission’s filing of a complaint against Justice
Annette K. Ziegler and recommending that she be reprimanded for allegedly engaging
in judicial misconduct, the case will now move into the hands of a three-judge
Judicial Conduct Panel.
Following
a four-month investigation, the Wisconsin Judicial Commission (WJC) on Sept. 6
filed a formal complaint with the state Supreme Court alleging the misconduct.
Once the Judicial Conduct Panel hears the matter, it will report its findings
to the Supreme Court. The six justices who sit on the high court, with Ziegler,
their newest colleague, will then review the report and make any final decisions
regarding potential discipline.
That
process is somewhat different from the judicial review process in some of Wisconsin’s
neighboring states. While Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota all have authoritative
bodies to review complaints and recommend discipline against judges, the manner
in which they do so often differs from Wisconsin.
The
Wisconsin Judicial Commission (WJC) formally commenced an investigation on April
20 into whether Ziegler, then a Washington County Circuit Court judge, violated
the judicial code of conduct. The original complaint alleged she contravened state
statutes, which preclude a judge from presiding over cases when there is a potential
conflict of interest. In Ziegler’s case, she sat on numerous cases involving
a bank where her husband served on the board of directors.
Alternative
Approaches
Following
the Judicial Conduct Panel’s finding, Ziegler will be subject to review by
her fellow justices. Officials from several neighboring states have noted that
discipline of sitting justices is rare, but when an incident does arise involving
a member of the state’s high court, the full panel of justices typically
does not oversee discipline.
Within
the last decade, Illinois dealt with a misconduct complaint filed against a sitting
chief justice who was disciplined. James D. Heiple resigned his post as chief
justice in 1997 after a formal investigation by the state’s Judicial Inquiry
Board.
The
grievance arose out of a 1996 traffic violation against Heiple, who was uncooperative
during the incident, according to the filed complaint.
Heiple
was ultimately censured by the Illinois Courts Commission for “conduct that
is prejudicial to the administration of justice and conduct that brings the judicial
office into disrepute.” He continued to serve as a justice until 2000, but
did not seek retention.
“Usually
a complaint is filed with the Inquiry Board, or if it is aware of a situation
— this one was all over the news — it takes up the investigation,”
said Joseph Tybor, Illinois Supreme Court Press Secretary. “If it sees cause,
the board will file a formal complaint, which essentially serves the purpose of
an indictment. It is then heard before courts commission, which can rule anything
from censure to removal of a judge.”
Illinois
uses a two-tiered system of re-view and discipline. The ruling body, the Illinois
Courts Commission, has only one justice who is appointed by the Supreme Court.
The remainder of the commission consists of two appellate court and two circuit
court judges along with two non-lawyer members appointed by the governor.
“The
Courts Commission is a constitutionally created body and while some states do
have the Supreme Court as the sole disciplinary authority, the Illinois commission
has only one justice to help insulate the court from an obvious conflicting situation,”
said Tybor, who has been press secretary since 1998. “Six justices are not
ruling on the seventh. The commission members are the ones who hear evidence presented
by the board, then deliberate and hand out discipline if warranted.”
Minnesota
Experience
Action
would have been taken in Minnesota against Justice John J. Todd, who retired in
1985 after the Board of Judicial Standards brought a complaint against him for
cheating on the multistate bar exam.
Todd
contested the board’s findings and the matter was set to go before the Court
of Appeals, which sits on these matters when a Supreme Court Justice is involved,
according to John Kostouros, Court Information Officer and Communications Director
for the Minnesota Supreme Court.
“Normally
the Supreme Court is the final say on lawyer and judge discipline, but Justice
Todd retired before the case went any further,” said Kostouros.
The
10-member Minnesota board is comprised of one appellate court judge, three trial
court judges, two attorneys who have practiced at least 10 years and four non-lawyer
members. All 10 are appointed by the governor with consent of the state Senate.
As
in Wisconsin, the board investigates complaints and makes recommendations for
discipline, but unlike Wisconsin the Supreme Court only makes the final determination
if the case does not involve a justice. According to Kostouros, the court of appeals
would rule in that case so as to avoid possible conflicts of interest that could
arise if the Supreme Court were asked to discipline one of its own.
Wisconsin
does not have any provision which precludes the Supreme Court from doling out
discipline to fellow justices, according to James Alexander, executive director
of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission. If one or six justices are recommended for
discipline, the remaining justices would review the findings.
“There
is no provision for substitute Supreme Court justices in any case, so if one is
disqualified, the case is decided by six justices and so on,” said Alexander.
“That’s the way things are set up here and I know things are handled
differently in other states.”
Michigan
handles judicial misconduct in much the same way as Wisconsin, but according to
Paul Fisher, executive director of Michigan’s Judicial Tenure Commis-sion,
they have yet to encounter a legitimate case against a justice.
“It’s
a situation that has never been tested here before, to the best of my knowledge,”
said Fischer. “I’ve been here seven years and know the cases pretty
well.”
Michigan’s
commission investigates claims and determines whether further action is necessary.
Ultimately, a recommendation is made for discipline of a justice to the Supreme
Court.
Fischer
estimated that the commission, made up five lower court judges, two lawyers elected
by state bar and two civilians appointed by the governor, received 660 grievances
last year and about 60 percent warranted further investigation, but none involved
a sitting justice.
