Should Colorado judges be disciplined by an independent board? The Judicial Department says no.

State constitution currently requires Colorado Supreme Court to oversee judicial discipline

Hamza Syed, research and constituent services analyst, left, and Sen. Pete Lee, D-El Paso County, right, listen to the presentation from the Commission on Judicial Discipline by chair Elizabeth Espinosa Krupa, front, during the first meeting of the Legislative Interim Committee on Judicial Discipline, which is tasked with reforming the state’s discipline system for judges in the wake of the judicial scandal, at Colorado State Capitol Building in Denver, Colorado on Tuesday, June 14, 2022.

By Shelly Bradbury

Colorado’s Supreme Court justices should not cede the ultimate power to determine how judges are publicly disciplined to an independent board, state Judicial Department representatives argued in a document submitted to state lawmakers this week as part of an ongoing effort to reform judicial discipline.

The Judicial Department’s stance goes directly against a proposal by the Commission on Judicial Discipline — the body responsible for investigating judges’ misconduct — and is one of several remaining conflicts between the two organizations as the reform effort unfolds this summer, according to documents reviewed by The Denver Post.

Colorado lawmakers earlier this year launched an effort to examine the system for disciplining the state’s judges in light of allegations that judges’ misconduct was previously covered up by the Judicial Department.

Lawmakers this summer are holding a series of public hearings to guide the reform effort. The next public hearing is scheduled for Aug. 10 at the state Capitol building.

Under the Colorado Constitution, judges who misbehave on the job are investigated by the Commission on Judicial Discipline, which can issue minor, private discipline to judges — like a private admonishment, censure or improvement plan. But all public discipline, including public censures, suspensions or a judge’s removal from the bench, must go through the Colorado Supreme Court.

The Commission on Judicial Discipline has proposed taking that power from the state Supreme Court and instead giving the authority to an independent disciplinary board made up of judges, lawyers and citizens. The Colorado Judicial Department opposes that idea, according to the document submitted to lawmakers Monday.

“No investigation has revealed that this basic structure of Colorado’s current system is deficient,” the unsigned document reads. “Thus, the justification for making such a significant and novel change to the current system is conspicuously lacking.”

The Commission on Judicial Discipline, in its own unsigned document submitted to lawmakers Tuesday, argued that the Supreme Court justices may not dole out fair discipline because of their concern for the reputation of the court system or potential liability for the Judicial Department, and compared the justices to a company’s board of directors, who feel obligated to protect the institution.

“To be credible, a neutral, detached and objective decision-maker must oversee a system of judicial discipline,” the commission’s document reads. “To be credible, that decision-maker cannot be a corporate board of directors that may prioritize the risks of incurring financial liability over the necessities of enforcing ethics rules. To be credible, that final decision-making body cannot be the same entity that also controls access to evidence and decides whether misconduct allegations are reported in the first place.”

The commission also raised the issue of more direct conflicts of interest, like if a member of the state Supreme Court were to face discipline proceedings — that justice’s colleagues would be in charge of any public discipline.

The Judicial Department wrote that the justices are considering a rule change to address such conflicts. Jon Sarche, a spokesman for the department, said Wednesday the justices expect to publish a draft rule in October. He said he could not share any additional details.

The recommendations and responses filed with state lawmakers this week also show the Judicial Department opposed a proposed change that would strip the Colorado Supreme Court of its authority to set the rules and procedures for the Commission on Judicial Discipline, another power enshrined in the state’s constitution.

The commission and Judicial Department did find some areas of agreement during meetings in late July, according to the documents. Both believe there should be more transparency in the process for disciplining judges — which now is, under the state constitution, almost entirely cloaked in secrecy.

The two entities agree that disciplinary proceedings should no longer be kept secret once a case has gone into formal proceedings, which is a stage in the process that happens after investigators believe a judge’s misconduct is supported by a preponderance of evidence.

“Although we do not agree with all of the commission’s recommendations, the department and the commission are not and should not be adversaries in this process,” the Judicial Department’s document reads. “It is clear that both parties want a robust, fair, and more transparent system of judicial discipline, which is essential to Colorado’s merit selection and retention system.”

Full Article & Source:

Should Colorado judges be disciplined by an independent board? The Judicial Department says no.

18 Lawyers & Judges disciplined in Texas on June list

By Mary Flood

Disciplinary Actions — June 2021 State Bar lists (verbatim from the State Bar of Texas) General questions regarding attorney discipline should be directed to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s Office, toll-free (877) 953-5535 or (512) 453-5535. The Board of Disciplinary Appeals may be reached at (512) 475-1578. Information and copies of actual orders are available at www.txboda.org. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct may be contacted toll-free, (877) 228-5750 or (512) 463-5533. Please note that persons disciplined by the Commission on Judicial Conduct are not necessarily licensed attorneys.

Houston area

JUDICIAL ACTIONS
On April 9, 2021, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning and order of additional education to Fredericka Phillips, judge of the 61st District Court, Houston, Harris County.

SUSPENSION
On April 5, 2021, John Joseph Klevenhagen III [#90001652], of Houston, accepted a 12-month fully probated suspension effective April 5, 2021. An investigatory panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Klevenhagen failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of her matter, failed to promptly deliver to the client funds that the client was entitled to receive, and failed to timely furnish to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Klevenhagen violated Rules 1.03(a), 1.14(b), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On April 5, 2021, John Joseph Klevenhagen III [#90001652], of Houston, accepted a public reprimand effective April 5, 2021. An investigatory panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Klevenhagen failed to promptly deliver to a third person funds that the third person was entitled to receive and failed to timely furnish to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Klevenhagen violated Rules 1.14(b) and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $250 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.

Rest of the state

JUDICIAL ACTIONS
To read the entire public sanctions, go to scjc.texas.gov.
On April 9, 2021, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand and order of additional education to James Baldwin, justice of the peace, Precinct 1, Deanville, Burleson County.

On April 9, 2021, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand and order of additional education to Andy Isaacs, justice of the peace, Precinct 3, Rockdale, Milam County.

On May 4, 2021, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued an opinion on the Special Court of Review In Re Inquiry Concerning The Honorable Lee Harper Wilson CJC Nos. 19-0755 & 19-0759.

REINSTATEMENT
Alonzo Ramos [#00797279], of Laredo, filed a petition in the 341st District Court of Webb County for reinstatement as a member of the State Bar of Texas.

DISBARMENTS
On March 22, 2021, John Rex Thompson [#19956150], of Tyler, was disbarred effective March 18, 2021. The District 2 Grievance Committee found that in September 2018, Thompson was hired for representation in a criminal matter. Thompson was paid $1,800 on September 20, 2018, and $700 on December 21, 2018. Thompson was actively suspended from practicing law on September 1, 2018, and has remained actively suspended since September 1, 2018, for failure to comply with a disciplinary judgment. On April 4, 2020, Thompson submitted a response to the grievance on letterhead that states, “Thompson Law Firm Rex Thompson, Attorney” even though Thompson was actively suspended and prohibited from using his name, in any manner, in conjunction with the words “attorney at law,” “attorney,” “counselor at law,” or “lawyer.”
In April 2016, Thompson was hired for representation in two felony criminal matters pending in Smith County for a flat fee of $7,500. In or about September 2016, Thompson stopped communicating with the client. Thompson failed to keep the client reasonably informed and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. On April 4, 2020, Thompson submitted a response to the grievance on letterhead that states, “Thompson Law Firm Rex Thompson, Attorney” even though Thompson was actively suspended and prohibited from using his name, in any manner, in conjunction with the words “attorney at law,” “attorney,” “counselor at law,” or “lawyer.” In July 2014, Thompson was hired to sue a client’s landlord. Thompson neglected to file suit until December 5, 2014, after the client sent certified mail to remind Thompson that the statute of limitations was going to expire. Thereafter, the case was dismissed for want of prosecution on March 3, 2015, because Thompson failed to notify the client of the trial date and failed to appear on the trial date. Further, on March 16, 2015, Thompson misrepresented to the client that Thompson would reinstate the lawsuit even though Thompson was on active suspension from January 1, 2015, until June 20, 2015. Despite being notified of the grievance, Thompson failed to submit a response to the grievance. In June 2017, Thompson was hired for representation in a criminal matter and was paid $2,000. While representing the client, Thompson’s law license was actively suspended and Thompson failed to notify the client that he could no longer practice law. On April 18, 2019, Thompson issued a refund check to the client that was returned due to insufficient funds. Despite being notified of the grievance, Thompson failed to submit a response to the grievance. Thompson neglected the legal matters entrusted to him and failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their legal matters. Thompson failed to hold client funds that were in Thompson’s possession in connection with the representation separate from Thompson’s own property, and upon termination of representation, Thompson failed to refund advance payments of fees that had not been earned. Thompson violated a disciplinary judgment and failed to respond to the grievances filed against him. Thompson violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.14(a), 1.15(d), 8.04(a)(7), 8.04(a)(8), and 8.04(a)(11). He was ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution and $5,954.64 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On March 10, 2021, John Rex Thompson [#19956150], of Tyler, was disbarred, effective March 2, 2021. The District 2 Grievance Committee found that on or about June 19, 2018, the complainant hired and paid Thompson $1,738.26 to represent the complainant in connection with a criminal matter. Thompson made an appearance in the case on June 25, 2018, and withdrew on July 6, 2018, without providing any legal services or filing any substantive motions in the case. Upon termination of representation, Thompson failed to refund advance payments of the fee that had not been earned. Thompson failed to respond to the grievance. Thompson violated Rules 1.15(d) and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $1,738.26 in restitution and $3,837.50 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

RESIGNATIONS
On April 13, 2021, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Richard E. Jackson [#10492980], of Coppell. At the time of Jackson’s resignation, there was one pending matter against him alleging professional misconduct. Beginning in 1999, Jackson was the lead assistant district attorney assigned to prosecute Stanley Mozee and Dennis Allen for the murder of Rev. Jesse Borns Jr. Jackson failed to disclose evidence that tended to negate the guilt of Mozee and Allen to defense counsel, including but not limited to, timely disclosure of details related to eyewitnesses’ identification or description of Mozee and Allen or another alleged suspect. Jackson allegedly violated Rule 3.09(d). On April 13, 2021, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Weldon Ralph Petty Jr. [#15866500], of Midland. At the time of his resignation, Petty had three grievances pending alleging Petty represented opposing parties in the same related matter. Petty violated Rule 1.06(b)(2).

SUSPENSIONS
On April 3, 2021, Joe Beverly Abbey [#00789000], of Rowlett, received a 48-month partially probated suspension effective April 1, 2021, with the first 12 months actively served and the remainder probated. An investigatory panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that in January 2017, Abbey was hired to review documents relative to an international loan transaction and was wired $30,696.97 to be held in escrow pending the closing of the loan. Thereafter, Abbey paid himself and other parties out of the escrow funds. When the loan transaction could not be completed and a dispute arose about the escrow funds, Abbey misrepresented that he was returning the funds when, in fact, Abbey paid the remaining funds to himself. Abbey failed to hold funds that were in Abbey’s possession in connection with the representation separate from his own property and failed to keep the disputed funds separated until the dispute was resolved. Abbey knowingly failed to disclose a material fact and the disclosure was necessary to avoid making Abbey a party to a fraudulent act. Abbey engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Abbey violated Rules 1.14(a), 1.14(c), 4.01(b), and 8.04(a)(3). He was ordered to pay $30,696.97 in restitution and $750 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On March 31, 2021, Scottie Allen [#01058020], of Dallas, agreed to a three-year fully probated suspension effective April 1, 2021. An investigatory panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Allen represented the complainant in proceedings following a mistrial declared in a criminal matter. Upon termination of representation, Allen failed to surrender papers and property to which the complainant was entitled. Allen violated Rule 1.15(d). He agreed to pay $816 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On March 31, 2021, Ysidro Deluna Arismendez III [#24008750], of Beeville, agreed to a one-year fully probated suspension effective April 1, 2021. An evidentiary panel of the District 11 Grievance Committee found that Arismendez neglected a client’s matter, failed to keep a client reasonably informed, and failed to return unearned fees. Arismendez violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 1.15(d).

On April 16, 2021, Keith Best Dunbar [#24010802], of Texarkana, received a 24-month fully probated suspension beginning April 1, 2021, and ending on March 31, 2023. An investigatory panel of the District 1 Grievance Committee found that Dunbar was paid $5,000 to represent a client in a child custody matter; thereafter, Dunbar failed to safeguard the client’s funds, failed to render an accounting of the funds, and failed to promptly refund the advance payment of fees that were not earned. Dunbar also represented another client in a divorce action and the client used a tax return refund to pay the retainer provided that Dunbar would return the remainder of the client’s tax refund after he deducted his fees and expenses. Dunbar failed to render an accounting of the clients’ funds and failed to promptly refund the advance payment of fees that were not earned. Dunbar violated Rules 1.14(a), 1.14(b), and 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $2,625 in restitution to the first client and $750 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On March 29, 2021, W. David Holliday [#09877300], of Dallas, received a fully probated suspension effective March 1, 2021, and ending on May 31, 2021. An investigatory hearing panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that Holliday failed to hold client funds  separate from his own property. Holliday had direct supervisory authority over his assistant and failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that his assistant’s conduct was compatible with the professional obligations of Holliday. Holliday violated Rules 1.14(a) and 5.03(a). He was ordered to pay $250 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On April 2, 2021, Jamie Terence Katzen [#24065541], of Dallas, agreed to a 36-month fully probated suspension effective April 1, 2021. An investigatory panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that while representing a client, Katzen deliberately overbilled his client and misrepresented the reason for the overbilling. Katzen collected an unconscionable fee and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Katzen violated Rules 1.04(a) and 8.04(a)(3). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On March 11, 2021, Pamela Regina Parker [#11601950], of Easthampton, Massachusetts, accepted a three-year partially probated suspension [one year active and two years probated] effective May 1, 2021. An evidentiary panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee found that while representing a client in an employment matter, Parker failed to file her client’s discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC. Parker also failed to respond to her client’s requests for information and explain the matter to the extent necessary for her client to make informed decisions. Additionally, Parker falsely represented to the client that she had filed an EEOC claim on the client’s behalf. After the client discovered that Parker did not file her claim with the EEOC, Parker failed to timely refund the unearned portion of her fee and return the client’s documents in her possession. Parker violated Rule 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.14(b), 1.15(d), 8.01(a), and 8.04(a)(3). She was ordered to pay $3,631.60 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On February 24, 2021, Mansel C. Turton [#20345600], of San Antonio, received a 4-year partially probated suspension effective March 25, 2021, with the first six months actively served and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 10 Grievance Committee found that Turton failed to hold the client’s funds in a trust account separate from his own property and failed to promptly render a full account regarding the client’s funds. Turton violated Rules 1.14(a) and 1.14(b). He agreed to pay $750 in restitution and $1,655 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

PUBLIC REPRIMANDS
On April 2, 2021, Robert Ray Flores [#24071887], of Raymondville, accepted a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 12 Grievance Committee found that Flores failed to timely file a response to a grievance. Flores violated Rule 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $800 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On March 24, 2021, Justin Avery Moore [#24088906], of Dallas, agreed to a public reprimand. The District 6 Grievance Committee found that on or about February 16, 2018, the complainant hired Moore to file a defamation lawsuit. Moore was paid $5,000 in advance legal fees. Upon termination of representation, Moore failed to refund advance payments of the fee that had not been earned. Moore violated Rule 1.15(d). He was ordered to pay $2,500 in restitution and $800 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On April 1, 2021, Gaylene Rogers [#17166500], of Dallas, agreed to a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 6 Grievance Committee found that in June 2019, Rogers was retained by the complainant to draw up a partnership agreement for a residential property. In representing the complainant, Rogers neglected the legal matter entrusted to her by failing to complete any legal work. Rogers failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of her legal matter and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the complainant. In August 2017, Rogers, acting as an escrow officer, closed on a loan between the complainant’s private lending company and another company. Rogers maintained funds in her trust account that were to be used for title insurance, but Rogers failed to obtain the insurance. Rogers violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 1.14(b). She was ordered to pay $3,000 in restitution and $500 in attorneys’ fees.

Full Article & Source:

18 Lawyers & Judges disciplined in Texas on June list

Nine Judges and Lawyers Disciplined on April List

By Mary Flood

Disciplinary Actions — April 2021 State Bar lists (verbatim from the State Bar of Texas) General questions regarding attorney discipline should be directed to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s Office, toll-free (877) 953-5535 or (512) 453-5535. The Board of Disciplinary Appeals may be reached at (512) 475-1578. Information and copies of actual orders are available at www.txboda.org. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct may be contacted toll-free, (877) 228-5750 or (512) 463-5533. Please note that persons disciplined by the Commission on Judicial Conduct are not necessarily licensed attorneys.

Houston area

SUSPENSION
On February 10, 2021, Henri M. Cosey [#00783883], 66, of Sugar Land, received a two-year partially probated suspension effective March 1, 2021, with the first six months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 5 Grievance Committee found that in representing the complainant in a business financial transaction, Cosey neglected the legal matter entrusted to him. Cosey failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Upon receiving funds or other property, Cosey failed to promptly notify the client and failed to promptly render a full accounting regarding such property. Cosey violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 1.14(b). He was ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution and $1,500 in attorneys’ fees.

PUBLIC REPRIMAND
On January 29, 2021, Syria Sinoski [#24079344], 43, of Houston, accepted a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that in representing a client, Sinoski neglected a legal matter entrusted to her and frequently failed to carry out completely the obligations that she owed to the client. Sinoski violated Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 1.01(b)(2). She was ordered to pay $1,000 in attorneys’ fees.

Rest of the state

JUDICIAL ACTIONS
To read the entire public sanctions, go to scjc.texas.gov.
On January 21, 2021, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand and order of additional education to Thomas G. Jones, justice of the peace, Precinct 1, Place 1, Dallas, Dallas County. Jones has filed an appeal of his sanction to a special court of review.

On February 23, 2021, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued an order of suspension without pay to Tomas “Tommy” Ramirez III, justice of the peace, Precinct 4, Devine, Medina County.

SUSPENSIONS
On January 22, 2021, Sarah Hoffman [#24075146], 37, of Dallas, received a two-year partially probated suspension effective February 15, 2021, with the first year actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 14 Grievance Committee found that on November 21, 2017, Hoffman was hired to prepare a will. Hoffman was paid $1,200 for the legal representation. During the representation, Hoffman neglected the legal matter and failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the case. Upon termination of representation, Hoffman failed to refund unearned fees. Hoffman also failed to timely submit a response to the grievance. Hoffman violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). Hoffman was ordered to pay $1,200 in restitution and $1,300 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
On January 22, 2021, Sarah Hoffman [#24075146], 37, of Dallas, received a two-year partially probated suspension effective February 15, 2021, with the first six months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 14 Grievance Committee found that on September 6, 2018, Hoffman was hired to represent a client in a probate matter. Hoffman was paid $1,700 for the legal representation. During the representation, Hoffman neglected the legal matter, failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the case, and failed to explain the probate matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions about the representation. Upon termination of representation, Hoffman failed to refund unearned fees. Hoffman also failed to timely submit a response to the grievance. Hoffman violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). She was ordered to pay $1,000 in restitution and $1,500 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
On January 22, 2021, Sarah Hoffman [#24075146], 37, of Dallas, received a two-year partially probated suspension effective February 15, 2021, with the first 18 months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 14 Grievance Committee found that in representing two clients in separate probate matters, beginning January 30, 2017, and October 31, 2018, respectively, Hoffman neglected the clients’ legal matters, failed to keep the clients reasonably informed about the status of their cases, and failed to provide a client with a refund of unearned fees. Hoffman also failed to timely submit a response to the grievance. Hoffman violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). She was ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution and $2,100 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

On January 15, 2021, Joe Luis Luna [#12688900], 62, of Crystal City, accepted a six-month fully probated suspension effective January 15, 2021. An investigatory panel of the District 12 Grievance Committee found that Luna neglected a client’s matters, failed to keep clients reasonably informed, failed to have a written statement in a contingent fee arrangement, represented clients when the representation reasonably appeared to be or became adversely limited by his duties to third persons or by his own interests, failed to make statements or disclaimers required under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct in the same language as the original solicitation communication, and engaged in conduct involving a serious crime. Luna violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.04(d), 1.06(b)(2), 7.02(d), and 8.04(a)(2). He agreed to pay $1,750 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On January 15, 2021, Joe Luis Luna [#12688900], 62, of Crystal City, accepted a three-month fully probated suspension effective January 15, 2021. An investigatory panel of the District 12 Grievance Committee found that Luna represented clients when the representation reasonably appeared to be or became adversely limited by his duties to third persons or by his own interests and engaged in conduct involving a serious crime. Luna violated Rules 1.06(b)(2) and 8.04(a)(2). He agreed to pay $1,250 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On January 29, 2021, David Saenz [#17514700], 70, of McAllen, agreed to a 24-month fully probated suspension effective February 1, 2021. An investigatory panel of the District 12 Grievance Committee found that Saenz failed to communicate with a client and permitted the conduct of a non-lawyer to violate disciplinary rules. Saenz violated Rules 1.03(a) and 5.03(b)(1). He was ordered to pay $1,500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On January 28, 2021, Daniel Robert Thering [#24042023], 44, of Austin, agreed to a 40-month partially probated suspension effective January 15, 2023, with the first 20 months actively served and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 9 Grievance Committee found that in March 2018, Thering substituted into a lawsuit involving a real estate dispute as attorney of record for the complainant. On January 14, 2019, the trial court awarded the complainant damages and attorneys’ fees to be paid from the earnest money being held by the title company relative to the underlying real estate transaction. In February 2019, the title company wired the earnest money to Thering’s non-IOLTA account to satisfy the judgment. In April 2019, when the complainant inquired about the funds, Thering indicated that he could not deliver the funds to the complainant. Thering failed to safeguard the funds, failed to promptly notify the complainant upon Thering’s receipt of the funds, and failed to promptly deliver the funds to the complainant. Upon conclusion of the contingent fee matter, Thering failed to provide the complainant a written statement reflecting the remittance of settlement funds to the complainant and the method of the determination. Further, Thering failed to communicate with the complainant and Thering failed to respond to the grievance. Thering violated Rules 1.03(a), 1.04(d), 1.14(a), 1.14(b), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.
On January 15, 2021, Daniel Robert Thering [#24042023], 44, of Austin, agreed to a 48-month active suspension effective March 15, 2021. The District 9 Grievance Committee found that the complainants hired Thering on March 3, 2016, for representation in a medical malpractice lawsuit against a doctor for injuries that the complainants sustained during a medical procedure on January 30, 2016. On March 19, 2016, Thering filed a plaintiff’s original petition and on March 20, 2016, Thering requested issuance of citation for service on the doctor. Thereafter, Thering neglected the legal matter and failed to have the doctor served with the lawsuit. Further, Thering accepted employment in a legal matter that he should have known was beyond his competence because Thering failed to obtain the necessary medical records and expert reports to prosecute a medical malpractice claim. The complainants made numerous requests for a status of the case, but Thering failed to communicate with them and failed to keep them reasonably informed as to the status of the matter. Further, even though Thering was provided notice of the complainants’ grievance, Thering failed to respond to the grievance. Thering violated Rules 1.01(a), 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

PUBLIC REPRIMANDS
On January 7, 2021, Devin Michelle AuClair [#24069065], 34, of Fort Worth, agreed to a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 7 Grievance Committee found that in 2018, AuClair was representing the complainant in criminal matters. The complainant had a court-ordered bond condition of “Do not possess or consume any alcoholic beverage.” During her representation of the complainant, AuClair and the complainant drank alcoholic beverages together on multiple occasions. The complainant had a court-ordered bond condition of “No contact with [victims] in any manner, including third party contact.” During her representation of the complainant, AuClair socialized with the complainant and the victims together on multiple occasions, during which drinking alcoholic beverages by the adults was involved. AuClair assisted the complainant in engaging in conduct that she knew was fraudulent. AuClair engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. AuClair violated Rules 1.02(c) and 8.04(a)(3). She was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On February 24, 2021, Stephen Dale Howen [#10117800], 60, of Waco, accepted a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 8 Grievance Committee found that on August 15, 2018, the complainant paid Howen a $500 fee to file a long-term care claim with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs on behalf of the complainant’s in-laws. During his representation of the complainant’s in-laws, Howen neglected the matter by failing to file a long-term care claim and failing to keep the complainant informed of the matter, despite the complainant’s requests. Howen also failed to file a response to the complainant’s complaint. Howen violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 8.04(a)(8) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Article X, Section 9, State Bar Rules. He was ordered to pay $500 in restitution.

Full Article & Source:

Nine Judges and Lawyers Disciplined on April List

28 Lawyers & Judges Publically Disciplined on January List

By Mary Flood

Disciplinary Actions — January 2021 State Bar lists (verbatim from the State Bar of Texas) General questions regarding attorney discipline should be directed to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel’s Office, toll-free (877) 953-5535 or (512) 453-5535. The Board of Disciplinary Appeals may be reached at (512) 475-1578. Information and copies of actual orders are available at www.txboda.org. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct may be contacted toll-free, (877) 228-5750 or (512) 463-5533. Please note that persons disciplined by the Commission on Judicial Conduct are not necessarily licensed attorneys.

Houston area

JUDICIAL ACTIONS
On October 28, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning and order of additional education to Kelly Crow, justice of the peace, Precinct 3, Katy, Fort Bend County.

On October 28, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning and order of additional education to Ursula Hall, judge of the 165th Civil District Court, Houston, Harris County. This sanction is currently on appeal before the Special Court of Review.

On October 28, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public admonition and order of additional education to Robert Richter, municipal court judge, Missouri City, Fort Bend County.

SUSPENSIONS
On November 30, 2020, Morgan Anthony Bourque [#24062627], 41, of The Woodlands, accepted a one-year partially probated suspension effective December 1, 2020, with the first month actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 3 Grievance Committee found that Bourque paid and gave something of value to a person not licensed to practice law, for soliciting prospective clients for, or referring clients or prospective clients to Bourque for representation. Bourque violated Rule 7.03(b). He was ordered to pay $2,606 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On October 30, 2020, David Nathaniel Harvey [#24040049], 55, of Houston, accepted a 42-month fully probated suspension effective November 1, 2020. An investigatory panel of the District 4 Grievance Committee found that Harvey frequently failed to carry out completely his obligations to his client, failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of his case, and failed to promptly comply with his client’s reasonable requests for information. Additionally, Harvey failed to timely respond to the grievance. Harvey violated Rules 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $55,000 in restitution and $1,000 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

Rest of the state

JUDICIAL ACTIONS
On November 12, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning and order of additional education to William C. Bosworth Jr., judge of the 413th Judicial District Court, Cleburne, Johnson County.

On November 12, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public admonition to Bill Metzger, former justice of the peace, Precinct 2, Place 2, Mesquite, Dallas County.

On November 12, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning to Ken Molberg, former judge of the 95th Civil District Court, Dallas, Dallas County.

On October 28, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning and order of additional education to Lisa R. Woodard, justice of the peace, Precinct 8, Fort Worth, Tarrant County.

On December 3, 2020, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a public warning (nunc pro tunc) to Ken Molberg, former judge of the 95th Civil District Court, Dallas, Dallas County.

BODA
On November 6, 2020, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals issued a judgment revoking probation and actively suspending respondent from the practice of law for Dallas attorney Ward Brackett Bennett Davison [#24066787], 40, from an agreed judgment of partially probated suspension by the evidentiary panel of the State Bar of Texas District 6 Grievance Committee. Respondent appeared pro se. BODA Cause No. 64755.

On October 27, 2020, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed a default judgment of disbarment against Nicholasville, Kentucky, attorney Cassidy Ann Teater [#24080044], 35. On or about January 27, 2020, an order of enforcement was issued in the Supreme Court of Tennessee in In Re: Cassidy Teater, An Attorney Licensed to Practice Law in Kentucky and Texas, Case No. M2020-00101-SC-BAR-BP, BOPR No. 2019-2987-0-AJ, disbarring Teater from the practice of law in the state of Tennessee. BODA Cause No. 64721.

On October 2, 2020, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed an agreed judgment of probated suspension against Frisco attorney Alex James Washington Jr. [#24107554], 50. On or about July 2, 2020, an attorney disciplinary proceeding opinion was entered by the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana in Case No. 2020-B-0577, suspending Washington from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. BODA Cause No. 64776.

DISBARMENTS
On October 5, 2020, Cynthia Rachelle Wil Cole [#24035579], 47, of Forney, was disbarred, effective September 11, 2020. The District 1 Grievance Committee found that beginning in 2008, Cole was hired by the complainants for representation in civil and bankruptcy matters. Throughout Cole’s representation of the complainants, Cole neglected the legal matters entrusted to her, failed to keep the complainants reasonably informed, failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and failed to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainants to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Cole made multiple misrepresentations to the complainants about the status of their legal matters and engaged in repeated fraudulent conduct, including, fabricating and/or forging court orders, settlement agreements, travel expenses, and legal work performed. Cole unlawfully appropriated $326,953 from the complainants in violation of Texas Penal Code 31.03(e)(7). Due to Cole’s professional misconduct, sanctions were ordered against the complainants and the complainants paid a judgment in the amount of approximately $160,000. Cole failed to respond to the grievance. Cole violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 8.04(a)(2), 8.04(a)(3), and 8.04(a)(8). She was ordered to pay $486,953 in restitution and $2,462 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On October 7, 2020, Kimberly Dian Smith [#24041944], 42, of Longview, was disbarred. An evidentiary panel of the District 1 Grievance Committee found that in June 2017, Smith was hired to represent the complainant’s daughter with regard to divorce and child custody matters. In representing the complainant’s daughter, Smith neglected the legal matter entrusted to her by failing to perform legal work on the case after the initial pleadings were filed. Smith failed to keep the complainant’s daughter reasonably informed about the status of her divorce and child custody matters and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the complainant’s daughter about the cases. Additionally, Smith failed to respond to the grievance. Smith violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 8.04(a)(8). She was ordered to pay $2,926.75 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.

RESIGNATIONS
On November 10, 2020, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Brigida Rodriguez [#24046743], 65, of Richardson. At the time of Rodriguez’s resignation there were two pending matters against her alleging professional misconduct. In the first matter, the complainant hired Rodriguez to start the adoption process to adopt her grandson on August 31, 2017. The complainant paid Rodriguez $4,000. Rodriguez neglected the legal matter, failed to communicate with the complainant, failed to return the unearned legal fee, and failed to respond to the notice of grievance. In the second matter, the complainant hired Rodriguez for representation in a family law matter on June 10, 2019. The complainant paid Rodriguez $2,000. Rodriguez frequently failed to carry out completely the obligations owed to the complainant and failed to explain the legal matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Rodriguez failed to return the unearned legal fee. Rodriguez violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(a), 1.03(b), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8).

On November 10, 2020, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Ilya Torchinsky [#24095196], 43, of West Palm Beach, Florida. At the time of Torchinsky’s resignation there were three pending matters against him alleging professional misconduct. On or about October 31, 2019, a judgment was entered by the Supreme Court of Florida in a matter styled In Re: Petition for Disciplinary Revocation of Ilya Torchinsky, Case No. SC19-1416, Lower Tribunal No(s): 2020-70,103(11F-MDR), which granted Torchinsky’s uncontested petition for disciplinary revocation with leave to seek readmission after five years. The judgment stated: “Disciplinary revocation is tantamount to disbarment.” In the petition for disciplinary revocation with leave to reapply for readmission, Torchinsky admitted that he knowingly and voluntarily submitted the petition with full knowledge of its effect. He further admitted that the following disciplinary charges were pending against him: TFB File No. 2019-70,573(11F); 2019-70,574(11F); 2019-70,701(11F); 2020-70(11F); 2020-70,095(11F), involved allegations of conversion of client trust funds by Torchinsky. The Florida Bar File No. 2019-70,500(11F) alleges that petitioner engaged in neglect and lack of communication. In all three pending matters, Torchinsky sent a demand letter and draft complaint from Legal Justice Advocates signed by Torchinsky and a licensed Florida attorney to the complainants stating that their website was in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act of 1988 because the website was not accessible to blind or visually disabled people. The letter demanded that the complainants make their websites readily accessible to and usable by blind and visually impaired individuals and made a demand for “damages, attorney’s fees and costs.” Torchinsky is not listed as one of the attorneys for Legal Justice Advocates despite the demand letter implying that he works for Legal Justice Advocates and represents Victims Awareness as local counsel. The letters and draft complaints identify Torchinsky as “Local Counsel for Plaintiff” but does not contain Torchinsky’s address. At the time the demand letter was sent, Torchinsky was not admitted to practice before the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of Texas or the Western District of Texas. Torchinsky violated Rules 4.01(a), 8.04(a)(3), and 8.05(a).

SUSPENSIONS
On November 24, 2020, Paul Gomez [#24063778], 45, of Little Elm, agreed to an 18-month fully probated suspension effective November 15, 2020. The District 6 Grievance Committee found that in July 2019, the complainant hired Gomez for representation in a divorce matter and discovery requests were served on Gomez. Gomez did not timely respond to the requests and a hearing was held regarding Gomez’s late discovery responses. Gomez did not attend the hearing and the complainant was sanctioned. Gomez neglected the legal matter entrusted to him and failed to carry out completely the obligations Gomez owed to the complainant. By planning to not appear at the properly noticed hearing resulting in the complainant being sanctioned, Gomez failed to explain the discovery matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation. By not informing the court or opposing counsel that he did not plan to appear at the hearing, Gomez took a position that unreasonably increased the costs or other burdens of the case or that unreasonably delayed resolution of the matter. Gomez violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.01(b)(2), 1.03(b), and 3.02. He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On October 27, 2020, Richard N. Jeffrey [#24036839], 45, of Harker Heights, received a five-year partially probated suspension (six months active and 54 months probated) related to two disciplinary cases effective December 1, 2020. An evidentiary panel of the District 8 Grievance Committee found that in the first case, Jeffrey was hired, on or about June 5, 2018, to represent a client in a suit to modify the parent child relationship. The client gave Jeffrey a check for $500 as an advanced fee. Rather than place the funds in an escrow or trust account, Jeffrey made the check payable to a third person. Thereafter, at Jeffrey’s request, the client paid Jeffrey another advanced fee of $500 in cash. Thereafter, Jeffrey represented to the client that he was having difficulty serving the opposing party with the petition; however, Jeffrey never filed any pleadings on behalf of the client. When the client discovered that no pleadings had been filed, the client terminated the representation and requested a refund. Jeffrey failed to respond to the client’s request and failed to refund any portion of the fees paid. In a second case, Jeffrey was paid an advanced fee of $1,500, on or about September 12, 2017, to represent a client with regard to a traffic citation and on a motion to revoke or adjudicate community supervision. Jeffrey failed to perform the work for which he was hired and failed to return any portion of the advanced fee paid. Jeffrey further failed to provide written responses to both disciplinary cases. Jeffrey violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.14(a), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Article X, Section 9, State Bar Rules. He was ordered to pay $2,500 in restitution and $1,315 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.

On October 30, 2020, Dennis R. Martin [#13059400], 71, of San Antonio, agreed to a three-year fully probated suspension effective October 15, 2020. An evidentiary panel of the District 10 Grievance Committee found that Martin neglected a client’s matter and failed to keep a client reasonably informed. Martin violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 1.03(a). He was ordered to pay $600 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On November 4, 2020, Omar Maynez-Grijalva [#24043807], 56, of El Paso, accepted a two-year fully probated suspension effective November 6, 2020. The 210th District Court of El Paso County found that Maynez-Grijalva violated Rules 1.08(a) and 1.08(g) [business transactions with client]; 1.14(b) [failing to promptly notify third party and deliver settlement funds]; 1.14(c) [failing to disburse to third parties]; 8.01(b) [knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information]; 8.04(a)(3) [conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation]; and 8.04(a)(8) [failing to respond to a grievance in a timely fashion]. Maynez-Grijalva violated Rules 1.08(a), 1.08(g), 1.14(b), 1.14(c), 8.01(b), 8.04(a)(3), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $4,211.96 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On October 13, 2020, Stuart R. Oliphint [#00789526], 61, of Fort Worth, received a 36-month partially probated suspension effective November 1, 2020, with the first six months actively suspended and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 7 Grievance Committee found that on April 14, 2018, the complainant hired Oliphint for representation in a criminal case. The complainant paid a legal fee of $4,000 to Oliphint for the representation. In representing the complainant, Oliphint neglected the legal matter entrusted to him. Oliphint failed to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Upon termination of representation, Oliphint failed to refund payments of the fee that had not been earned. Additionally, Oliphint failed to respond to the grievance. Oliphint violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(b), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $4,000 in restitution and $1,461.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

On October 23, 2020, Lloyd Eugene Ward [#20845100], 59, of Dallas, received a 36-month fully probated suspension effective March 7, 2020. The 191st Civil District Court of Dallas County found that Ward committed professional misconduct by violating Rule 3.03(a)(1) [A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal]. Ward was ordered to pay $19,216.74 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

PUBLIC REPRIMANDS
On November 9, 2020, C. Bruce Abraham [#00819800], 70, of Marshall, entered into an agreed judgment of public reprimand. An investigatory panel found that the complainant hired Abraham to represent him in a divorce case. Abraham neglected the legal matter entrusted to him, failed to keep the complainant reasonably informed about the status of his divorce case, and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the complainant. Abraham also failed to file a response to the grievance. Abraham violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $250 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On November 16, 2020, John-Paul Chidgey [#24035419], 47, of Fort Worth, agreed to a public reprimand. The District 7 Grievance Committee found that in March 2019, the complainant hired Chidgey for representation in a medical practice matter. Chidgey neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by allowing the statute of limitation to expire. Chidgey failed to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the complainant to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Chidgey violated Rules 1.01(b)(1) and 1.03(b). He was ordered to pay $500 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On October 26, 2020, Arthur David Courtade [#04891000], 73, of Fort Worth, agreed to a public reprimand. The District 7 Grievance Committee found that upon termination of representation, Courtade informed the complainant that he was experiencing a health issue and would provide any information and paperwork that the complainant might need regarding the case. Thereafter, Courtade failed to respond to the grievance. Courtade violated Rules 1.15(d) and 8.04(a)(8). He was ordered to pay $200 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

On November 24, 2020, Ryan Edward Huie [#24055700], 42, of Austin, received a public reprimand related to four disciplinary cases. An investigatory panel of the District 8 Grievance Committee found that in the first case, Huie was paid $5,000, in August 2018, to defend a client in a DWI matter. On November 7, 2019, Huie failed to appear for a scheduled court hearing and notify the client that he would not be attending the hearing. Additionally, Huie failed to inform his client and the court that his license to practice law had been administratively suspended, in compliance with Rule 13.01 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Subsequently, after Huie was terminated by the client, he failed to withdraw from the representation and to take the steps reasonably practicable to protect the client’s interests. Additionally, Huie was found to have neglected the client’s case and failed to maintain reasonable communication with the client regarding the matter. In the second case, the panel found that Huie was paid $1,800, in November 2018, to represent a client in a criminal matter. During his representation of the client, Huie failed to appear for a scheduled court hearing and failed to inform the client and the court in writing that his license to practice law was administratively suspended, in compliance with Rule 13.01 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Additionally, Huie failed to withdraw from the case and to take steps reasonably practicable to protect the client’s interests after he was terminated. Huie also failed to respond to the client’s numerous communication attempts, thus failing to maintain reasonable communication with the client regarding her case. In the third case, the panel found that after Huie was paid $2,000 to represent a client in a criminal matter, he failed to appear for a scheduled court hearing and failed to inform the client and the court that his license to practice law was administratively suspended, in compliance with Rule 13.01 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Additionally, after Huie was terminated by the client, he failed to withdraw from the case and to take steps reasonably practicable to protect the client’s interests. Huie also failed to maintain reasonable communication with the client regarding his case. In the fourth case, the panel found Huie was paid $6,000, in July 2018, to represent a client in multiple criminal matters and failed to appear for two scheduled court hearings in 2019. Additionally, the panel found Huie failed to inform the client and the court that his license to practice law was administratively suspended, in compliance with Rule 13.01 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Subsequently, after Huie was terminated by the client, he failed to withdraw from the client’s representation and to take steps reasonably practicable to protect the client’s interests. Further, Huie failed to respond to the client’s numerous communication attempts, thus failing to maintain reasonable communication with the client regarding his case. Huie violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), 1.15(a)(1), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(10) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Article X, Section 9, State Bar Rules. He was ordered to pay $2,500 in restitution in the first case.

On November 17, 2020, Ben L. Ivey III [#24032462], 46, of El Paso, accepted a public reprimand. An investigatory panel of the District 17 Grievance Committee found that Ivey failed to promptly notify and deliver funds to parties entitled to receive funds. Ivey violated Rule 1.14(b). He was ordered to pay $2,800 in restitution and $750 in attorneys’ fees and direct expenses.

Full Article & Source:

28 Lawyers & Judges Publically Disciplined on January List

Editorial: Astacio case shows need to reform how New York disciplines judges

There is no pretty way to put this: The saga of Rochester City Court Judge Leticia Astacio has been ugly and utterly disappointing.

Since a judge convicted Astacio of driving while intoxicated in August 2016 and sentenced her to a conditional discharge of a year:

• Her sentence was extended to February 2018 after she pleaded guilty in November 2016 to violating two of her conditions — abstaining from alcohol and not driving under the influence.
• An arrest warrant was issued for her on May 30 after she failed to appear for a court hearing (she was reportedly in Thailand).
• A declaration of delinquency was also filed against Astacio for neglecting to submit to a urine test previously requested.

Eight months ago, this Editorial Board called on Astacio to resign. Barred from non-public areas of the county's judicial buildings and relieved her of all her judicial responsibilities, she cannot do the job voters entrusted her to do when elected.

We stopped short of calling for her to be removed from the bench, however. We sincerely hoped she would seek help for what could be alcohol use disorder and return to the bench as an inspiration for others. In her short time on the bench, she earned a reputation as a judge who is more interested in rehabilitating defendants than punishing them. She is respected and appreciated by communities that believe the judicial system treats people of color too harshly. 

But that has not happened and now, she is the subject of derision. Cries for Astacio to be removed — a decision that would mean she could never serve in New York as a judge again — grow louder.  Questions abound about why she continues to collect a salary and why she can't simply be fired.

Yes, a judge who flouts the law seriously jeopardizes the confidence of the public in the legal system.  But this case is an example of a bigger problem that must be addressed: the need for more transparency about disciplinary proceedings and more options to discipline a judge.

Since the late 1970s, the state Commission on Judicial Conduct has advocated for an expansion of authority of the Court of Appeals to suspend a judge with or without pay and for the ability of the commission to make its investigations public after a decision to formally charge a judge with misconduct.

The state Legislature should make this longtime request a reality by working with the commission to create smart legislation and voting for a change in the law.

In 35 states, formal disciplinary proceedings against a judge become public at the point the judge is served with charges, In New York, the entire process is confidential unless a judge waives confidentiality. New York must become more transparent.

The Court of Appeals must also be given expanded authority to suspend a judge without pay as an intermediate measure. It cannot do so right now. Currently, the Court of Appeals can suspend a jurist only if the judge is charged with a felony or with a misdemeanor that involves moral turpitude, or if the commission has filed a determination that the judge should be removed from office.

Only two of 27 judges disciplined for excessive use of alcohol have been successfully removed by the commission over the past 40 years. Both were drunk while presiding in court.

The removal of a judge from the bench should not be taken lightly. But it shouldn't be this difficult, either. Justice demands a better approach.

Full Article & Source:
Editorial: Astacio case shows need to reform how New York disciplines judges

N.J. Supreme Court says judges broke rules by dining with indicted friend

New Jersey Supreme Court

TRENTON — The state Supreme Court today ruled that a pair of Passaic County judges violated state judicial ethics rules by dining with a long-time friend after he was indicted on corruption charges — but stopped short of punishing the judges.

State Superior Court Judge Raymond A. Reddin and Paterson Municipal Judge Gerald Keegan faced sanctions ranging from suspension to being forced off the bench for continuing to attend regular dinner gatherings after their friend, Anthony Ardis — a former top-level administrator at the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission — was charged with official misconduct.

In a unanimous 7-0 decision, the state's highest court said both judges "reasonably called into question their impartiality and weakened the public's confidence in the judicial system."

"Because such events raise questions about the integrity of judges and the Judiciary as a whole, they should not take place," Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote for the court.

But Rabner said both judges have "an unblemished record and neither engaged in actual impropriety."
Still, as part of the ruling, the court strengthened ethics rules for New Jersey judges.

Many states and federal courts determine when a judge's conduct creates an appearance of impropriety by considering "whether reasonable minds would perceive that a judge has violated the judicial canons of ethics," according to the decision.

Thus, the Supreme Court adopted a new standard for New Jersey: "Would an individual who observes the judge's personal conduct have a reasonable basis to doubt the judge's integrity and impartiality?"

"That approach appropriately protects the reputation of the Judiciary and, by extension, the public," Rabner wrote. "It also is fairer to judges, who can better anticipate the meaning of the more familiar test."

The court noted that any judge who dines with someone under indictment from now on would be sanctioned under the new standard.

Ardis has been friends with Reddin for 50 years and Keegan for 30 years, according to court papers. In 2000, they began weekly gatherings for dinner at a Woodland Park restaurant, following by Mass at a nearby church.

In 2011, Ardis was indicted for allegedly using his power and influence at the PVSC — the commission that oversees the state's largest sewage treatment plant — to exploit subordinates into helping fix up his mother's home for free.

The group continued to meet despite the indictment, according to the papers. And in September 2012, they dined at the restaurant while a local Republican organization hosted a dinner there the same evening. One guest emailed Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno about it, and the matter was referred to the state Division of Criminal Justice, the documents say.

The judges voluntarily stopped dining with Ardis after the grievance, according to the papers.

In June of last year, the state Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct recommended that Reddin and Keegan be only publicly admonished and not suspended or removed.

Reddin's attorney — his son, Raymond B. Reddin of Totowa — said he was pleased with today's ruling.

"As the opinion clearly stated, both Judges have unblemished records and neither engaged in any actual impropriety," the son said. "Now they can go forward serving the public with their heads held high."

Keegan's attorney, Clark Cornwell III of Paterson, said he was happy the court created a new standard.

"I think it now tells judges that their conduct will be assess in the context of what a reasonable person might think," Cornwell said.

Full Article & Source:
N.J. Supreme Court says judges broke rules by dining with indicted friend