This is the second in a series of articles running this week that will examine whether the judicial discipline process is fair to judges accused of misconduct. For additional articles and more information, visit the home page for this special report by clicking here.
Some in
Five of 15 elected municipal, magistrate, probate and district judges in
The most outspoken critic of the commission has been Magistrate Judge Carlos Garza. Garza was disciplined in June for interfering in a case involving a woman with whom he had a personal relationship. He admitted to the misconduct, but later backed off, saying his admission came “out of financial need” and he is “rather confident that I did nothing wrong.”
In July, the state Supreme Court placed Garza on suspension with pay until Nov. 3 while the commission investigates other allegations that remain secret because the court has sealed the file. Then in August, the commission filed a new petition asking the court to suspend Garza without pay and force him to undergo tests for illegal drugs because he has refused the commission’s demand for the tests. The file wasn’t sealed for more than a week, so affidavits alleging drug use and other misconduct by Garza became public. The case is currently pending.
Garza has accused Commission Director Jim Noel of violating attorney ethics and interfering with the adjudication of the inquiries into his behavior, and accused others in the magistrate court of using the commission to try to get him off the bench.
Noel has responded by saying he and staff members in his office have treated Garza “with the utmost respect and the utmost dignity.”
Treating Garza fairly is an important part of the commission’s mission.
The commission’s purpose, according to its own rules, is to “protect the public from any improper conduct and behavior of judges, to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, to maintain public confidence in the judiciary, to create a greater awareness of proper judicial behavior on the part of the judiciary and the public, and to provide for the expeditious and fair disposition of complaints of judicial misconduct.”
The commission is an 11-member board that hears cases brought forward by staff attorneys. Its members include six appointees of the governor, two lawyers appointed by the state Board of Bar Commissioners and three judges appointed by the high court.
The only political appointments are those of the governor, and no more than four can belong to the same political party. One of those six must be elected chair, a position currently held by David Smoak, a Democrat who used to work in the Carter White House.
The staff attorneys, led by Noel, are tasked with investigating complaints of violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. They reviewed some 1,600 complaints against judges in fiscal year 2005. They decide which inquiries to take to the commission and which to drop. At secret hearings before the commission, the attorneys present evidence and testimony, and the accused judges have an opportunity to defend themselves.
The commission could opt against taking action, could issue cautionary letters to judges, or could request that the high court discipline judges. The commission does not have the authority to discipline judges itself.
All 50 states have a board like the commission but, unlike
Only if the commission takes a case to the high court do allegations against a judge become public, and even then the court can seal the case so that almost all details remain secret.
The consequences of misconduct are serious. Potential discipline includes reprimand, mandatory counseling, monetary fines, suspension or removal from office. Judges can be disciplined not only for actual misconduct, but also for conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety, regardless of whether there was actual wrongdoing.
Noel said that has to be the case so the public can be confident that the judiciary has integrity.
“Judges are held to the highest standards of conduct because of the role they play in society. They stand at the pinnacle of a society governed by the rule of law,” he said. “Without (the public’s) confidence, the integrity of the judiciary goes down the tubes. Without that confidence, our laws are meaningless.”
Former District Judge Larry Ramirez was facing multiple allegations of sexual harassment and making improper comments when he resigned in June. At the time of his resignation, the commission had not decided whether to seek discipline against Ramirez, but did ask the high court to suspend him while it investigated because of the gravity of the situation. The court denied the request for suspension, but it was at that hearing that some details about the allegations became public.
In a news release shortly thereafter announcing his resignation, Ramirez wrote that the process is unfair.
“The reasons for my resignation are numerous, and regrettably, have nothing to do with my life’s work: the law,” Ramirez wrote. “… it is my opinion that the disciplinary process judges face in
Before he resigned, Ramirez told State Rep. Joseph Cervantes that he could not afford the tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees he would accumulate in defending himself.
“Larry Ramirez, to his credit, was recognized as a very hard-working and very diligent judge,” Cervantes said. “I don’t think judges should have to choose between financial ruin and defending themselves. … We need to make sure judges’ due-process rights are protected.”
The cost of defense against an ethical complaint can be great. The City of
The judges’ legal bills for defending themselves against the complaint topped $100,000. They sued in an attempt to force the city to pay the bill, claiming its refusal to do so violated the separation of powers doctrine, but a district judge recently tossed out their lawsuit.
Sympathizers say no one who is qualified will want to be a judge if he or she can be held liable for such a legal bill even when the complaint is tossed out. Others are quick to point out that, with the exception of some magistrates, judges are attorneys. If they can’t afford lawyers, they can represent themselves.
Despite the potential financial costs, Gov. Bill Richardson believes judges’ rights are protected in the current process, and his spokesman joined Noel and Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Bosson in saying the system is fair.
“The governor wants accountability for the judiciary,” said
For additional articles and more information, visit the home page for this special report by clicking here.
This article, like all posted on Heath Haussamen on New Mexico Politics, is copyrighted (© 2006) by Haussamen Publications, Inc., and is not to be republished without permission.