The 5-1 decision from the Court of Appeals also sustains the charges of misconduct against Cathryn M. Doyle, twice elected Albany County surrogate, for the perception of preferential treatment created by those relationships.
"Her behavior reflects 'exceedingly poor judgment and an inability to recognize impropriety,'" the June 26 opinion states, citing the findings of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct.
New York's county-based Surrogate's Courts hear cases involving the affairs of decedents, including the probate of wills and the administration of estates. They also handle adoptions.
In a formal written complaint served on Doyle in 2012, the commission cited nine matters before her court involving attorneys Thomas Spargo, Matthew Kelly and William Cade in which Doyle should have disqualified herself.
The Court of Appeals noted that Spargo, a former state Supreme Court justice removed from office in 2006, was Doyle's friend for more than 40 years and her personal attorney before being disbarred in 2009.
Kelly managed Doyle's election campaign for a second 10-year term as surrogate in 2010. He also helped manage her unsuccessful attempt in 2007 to win the Democratic nomination for Supreme Court justice, the court said.
Cade served as Doyle's personal attorney and represented her when the Commission on Judicial Conduct voted in 2007 to censure her, according to the ruling. She was cited then for "misleading and evasive" testimony during the investigation that led the commission to remove Spargo from the bench.
Doyle did not dispute that she presided over the matters brought by the men, but contended they involved routine will and estate issues, the court noted.
"The clear thrust of the judicial ethics opinions since at least 1994 has been that a surrogate should recuse from 'routine, non-contested or administrative' matters involving attorneys with whom he or she has a relationship that could give rise to an appearance of impropriety or raise a question as to the judge's impartiality," they said. "It is only by an overly restrictive interpretation of her ethical obligations that petitioner reached a different conclusion."
Citing Doyle's prior censure, the court also rejected her contention that removal from office was too severe a penalty.
"While the misconduct at issue is not of the same type that had resulted in her prior censure, it is not, as petitioner maintains, 'wholly unrelated,'" the judges wrote.
Without question, a heightened awareness of and sensitivity to any and all ethical obligations would be expected of any judge after receiving a public censure," they added. "Petitioner's failure to exercise that vigilance within just a year of her prior discipline is persuasive evidence that she lacks the judgment necessary to her position."
Full Article and Source:
Removal of Surrogate Judge Upheld in NY
Just the appearance of impropriety should result in recusal. This reminds me of he Harvey case where the judge came from the same law firm as the lawyers in the case before her and denied that it was a conflict.
ReplyDeleteI bet it really eats judges up when they lose an appeal.
ReplyDelete