May 14, 2007
By Suzanne M. Blonder & Emily Werth
No sensible observer can deny that the Commission on Judicial Conduct is badly broken.
Although the commission disposed of 110 complaints of judicial misconduct in 2005, only two judges were disciplined publicly that year. Because private sanctions hold no real professional consequences, judges have nothing to fear from these informal slaps on the wrist. Closed-door discipline simply does not function as a meaningful deterrent against abuses of judicial power.
The Supreme Judicial Court recently proposed ending the commission's practice of privately negotiating certain disciplinary actions with unethical judges ("Bid to curb CJC's power draws reaction from bar," March 26).
Although already attracting much criticism from the organized bar and even a promise of retaliatory action from state legislators, in fact this proposal does not go far enough. Massachusetts deserves an accountability system with real teeth that is able to safeguard the public from judges who are not fit for the bench.
Here are four reforms that can transform the CJC into a body that upholds judicial integrity in the commonwealth:
Implement transparency in all judicial discipline. Every day, individuals appear in Massachusetts courts without knowing whether the judge presiding over their case has any history of misconduct. Public awareness is an essential component of any mechanism entrusted with public protection. Residents of the commonwealth should have the right to be informed of all disciplinary action against judges, from a simple censure to a more serious suspension or removal from the bench, and the commission should publicize the disposition of cases on its website.
Increase layperson participation. No entirely self-regulated profession can be expected to hold itself accountable. Public trust in the integrity of the judiciary will rise with increased public participation in the disciplinary process. Currently, the CJC is composed of three judges, three lawyers and three members of the public. One way to add immediate credibility is require that lay representatives take half of the seats on the commission.
Impose meaningful discipline on unethical judges. Of the 110 complaints of judicial misconduct addressed by the CJC in 2005, 98 percent were dismissed without any disciplinary action, and more than 35 percent were dismissed without even a preliminary investigation. The commission should strive to investigate at least 90 percent of complaints, and whenever unscrupulous judges are identified they should be removed from the bench.
Improve efficiency in the disciplinary process. Seventy-three complaints remained pending at the end of 2005, more than half of the grievances filed with the CJC over the course of that year. The SJC should implement a strict nine-month timeframe for the commission's disciplinary decisions, ensuring that unethical judges promptly receive appropriate reprimand for misconduct.
The SJC should seize this opportunity to transform the commission into a model system of transparent judicial oversight that strengthens citizens' trust in their local judges and restores integrity to the state's third branch. Can Massachusetts settle for anything less?
Suzanne M. Blonder and Emily Werth are senior counsel and program staff, respectively, at HALT - An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform, a national, nonprofit public interest group based in Washington, D.C., dedicated to increasing accountability and access in the civil justice system.
© Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly
|
