Judicial Conduct Comm. releases 2013 statistics

Listen to this article

Twelve of the state’s more than 3,000 judges left office last year as the result of investigations by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Two of the them were removed, five resigned as the result of public stipulations and agreed to never again hold judicial office again while the other five resigned before proceedings against them became public, according to the 2014 annual report publicly released last week by the commission. There are approximately 3,300 judges and justices in the system, including more than 2,000 town and village justices, many who are not lawyers.

“The commission’s very existence both tempers the judiciary and reassures the public,” Robert H. Tembeckjian, commission administrator and counsel, wrote in the report. “I believe the judiciary as a whole has become significantly more sensitive to its ethical obligations since the constitutional amendment of 1978 created this commission and the public had come to expect the commission to take appropriate disciplinary action when judicial ethics are violated.”

He said the result is greater public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and the courts.

The total number of complaints filed with the commission in 2013 is down slightly, after rising steadily for the past several years.

According to the annual report, the commission received 1,770 new complaints in 2013, compared to 1,785 in 2012, a record high 2,025 filed in 2010 and a five year average of 1,851.

The commission is an 11-member body statutorily established to investigate allegations of misconduct by judges in New York state. It is composed of judges, lawyers and non-lawyers appointed by the governor, chief judge and leaders of the state Legislature. Tembeckjian noted there is a vacancy which must filled by the governor. The vacant slot is also for a non-lawyer, non-judge.

Annual reports are required by law, but it’s not just about the numbers. Commission chair, Perinton Town Justice Thomas A. Klonick, said he hopes judges find them useful as guidance from an educational standpoint.

“It’s done largely not to summarize statistics, but be a tool of guidance and education,” he said. “I know an awful lot of judges who read it.”

The annual report, which is distributed to all judges, also includes discussions on topics that may come up as complaints that other judges can learn from. Addressed in the latest report are the disciplinary consequences of a judge driving under the influence of alcohol, the impropriety of writing certain recommendations or references letters and the importance of filing timely and accurate annual financial disclosure statements.

“Over the years, the Commission has publicly disciplined a number of judges for having committed various alcohol-related driving offenses and, on occasion, discharging or attempting to discharge judicial duties while under the influence of alcohol,” Tembeckjian wrote. “These problems are of such gravity and arise with sufficient regularity to warrant discussion in this annual report.”

He noted disciplinary commissions throughout the country are treating the subject with more severity, recognizing the seriousness of driving under the influence of alcohol and the toll it takes on society. Tembeckjian cites several cases, dating back to the early 1980s, involving judges driving drunk, being intoxicated while on the bench and seeking treatment for an alcohol problem, which he wrote can mitigate the degree of discipline imposed.

“There have been some cases that we have had with judges with drinking and driving in recent years,” Klonick said. “The commission has 11 members and with that, you would get 11 different opinions. Some feel very strongly that judges should be the model of decorum and appropriateness and the least indiscretion should be dealt with very harshly. Others feel judges are human too.”

He pointed out judges are in stressful situations, that substance abuse does occur and judges are encouraged to seek treatment.

“Part of what the commission does is not just discipline, but education for all judges,” Klonick said. “It’s not the commission’s desire to see how many judges it can discipline. Its desire is to see how many judges it can make better through education.”

A warning about timely filing of financial disclosures was included in the 2013 report, letting judges know failure to do so could result in public discipline. The same is true for judges innocently, or not, using their judicial stationery to write a letter of recommendation or sending a letter of reference for someone.

The 247-page reports includes summaries and copies of the commission’s 21 formal disciplinary determinations in 2013, statistics for the year, overall statistics dating back to the commission’s inception in 1978, summaries of litigated challenges to the commission’s procedures and commentary on various ethics issues that arise regularly, many of which were published throughout the year as they came happened.

Removed from office were Glen R. George, a justice of the Middletown Town Court in Delaware County and Cathryn M. Doyle, a judge of the Surrogate’s Court in Albany County. George was removed for dismissing a ticket for a seat belt violation issued to his friend and former employer, without a prosecutor present and despite having been warned not to preside over matters involving his friend’s family. Doyle also presided over matters involving a close friend, her former attorney and campaign manager, after having been censured in 2007 for giving “evasive and deceptive” testimony.

Of the five public resignations, one was in the Fourth Department: Robert E. Alexander, a justice of the Pembroke Town Court and former justice of Corfu Village Court in Genesee County, after being charged with failing to supervise his clerk, his daughter Brandi Watts, which resulted in missing court funds, failing to provide receipts for funds received in more than 370 traffic cases and failing to report cases and remit funds to the state comptroller in a timely manner.

Among five judges publicly censured, one was in the Fourth Department and four of the five public admonitions were in the Fourth Department.

All complaints received by the commission are summarized and analyzed by staff and then reviewed by the commission which votes whether or not to investigate. Most complaints are dismissed for lack of merit or because they are outside of the commission’s jurisdiction. The commission also does not investigate complaints concerning disputed judicial rulings or decisions.

A copy of the report is available on the commission’s website at www.cjc.ny.gov.