|
BY SUZANNE M. BLONDER
HALT
Most judges serve the public well, but our 2008 Judicial Accountability Report Card reveals that in D.C., Virginia and Maryland, the systems fail to protect citizens from incompetent, negligent and even dysfunctional judges.
Staff at the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure may be dedicated to serving the public, but rules do not permit administrators to release information about ethics complaints against judges unless the Court of Appeals orders public discipline. The District is one of only three jurisdictions in the nation that delays disclosure until this final stage.
Unlike policies in most states, Virginia rules "gag" individuals from disclosing information about their ethics complaints against judges. Despite citizens' right to free speech, the Virginia Code provides that papers filed with the Judicial Inquiry & Review Commission "shall not be divulged . . . by any person who files a complaint."
Maryland law requires judges to annually disclose their financial holdings, but last year the Center for Public Integrity found that the reports omit important data, including the economic interests of the judge's spouse and dependents, and are not available online.
And these inadequacies have real consequences. In last summer's high-profile "pants suit," D.C. Judge Roy Pearson sued a dry cleaner for $54 million for losing a pair of slacks. Although his judicial term was not renewed last May, Pearson remained on the court's payroll, earning $100,000 a year as an attorney advisor until November 10, 2007.
When Virginia Judge James Michael Shull called a teenager in his courtroom a "mama's boy" and advised a woman to marry her abusive boyfriend in 2004, the state's Commission simply slapped the judge on the wrist. It wasn't until six months ago, when Shull ordered a woman to drop her pants in court and decided a custody dispute by flipping a coin, that he was finally removed from the bench.
Maryland District Court Judge Richard Palumbo inexplicably refused to renew a protection order for Yvette Cade, a woman who pleaded for safety from a husband with a long history of violence. The estranged husband then doused Ms. Cade with gasoline, disfiguring 60 percent of her body. Maryland's Commission permitted Palumbo to retire quietly and receive his pension - even when the judge refused to acknowledge his transgressions.
To correct this pattern of secrecy, laxity and insularity, three fundamental reforms are needed:
- The judicial discipline and disability system must come out into the open. Complainants should have the right to speak freely about a judge's misconduct and the disciplinary process.
- State laws should require judges to annually file comprehensive and publicly accessible financial reports and should place monetary caps on the gifts that judges may receive from private interests.
- Ordinary citizens should have a meaningful role on the panels that decide ethics complaints against members of the judiciary. Lawyers and judges should not dominate the decision-making process.
Instituting these reforms could help replace an abject failure with a system that actually protects the most vulnerable litigants in our local courthouses.
Suzanne M. Blonder is senior counsel at Help Abolish Legal Tyranny (halt.org).
|
