Advocacy group gives Kentucky D in judicial accountability

June 18, 2008

Jun. 18 - An advocacy group that rallies for accessibility and transparency of the nation's justice system ranked Kentucky 38th in the nation for judicial accountability and gave it an overall D+ grading.

Help Abolish Legal Tyranny (HALT) ranked and graded each state's court ethics standards and accessibility to nonlawyers in addition to giving the federal court system an overall grade. The group did not review cases but examined the rules and procedures for sanctioning judges who violate ethical codes.

Based in Washington, D.C., the 30-year-old legal reform nonprofit group pushes for expanded access and increased accountability in the civil justice system.

On the Judicial Accountability Report Card 2008, no state received an A, and only three states - Washington, Connecticut and Pennsylvania - received a B. Thirty-five states received a C-range grade while about a dozen others fell into the D category. Two states - Maine and Mississippi - got an F.

"While most judges serve capably from the bench, our system of judicial accountability unfortunately allow others to regularly abuse their positions of power," stated HALT Senior Counsel Suzanne M. Blonder in a statement. "Weak conduct codes permit state and federal judges to rule even when they have a critical conflict of interest in a case. Judicial discipline commissions regularly turn a blind eye to misconduct by making it difficult for citizens to file complaints against judges, concealing data and ultimately refusing to remove or meaningfully sanction even the most incompetent and abusive judges."

The group graded states on seven categories: transparency, availability of meaningful sanctions, consumer friendliness, online outreach, public participation, financial disclosure and gift restrictions.

In all categories, Kentucky received a C or lower, including F's in consumer friendliness and gift restrictions.

The group cites that in 2004, a Perry County circuit judge faced with 13 charges of misconduct, including chronic absenteeism, improper hiring and other questionable actions, was allowed to resign rather than risk losing his pension, which would have occurred if he was found guilty of charges and removed from the bench.

Blonder says that Kentucky law, unlike most states, prohibits disclosure of information by citizens who file a complaint against judges. Blonder calls the "gag" rules a violation of free speech, and also harps on the commission for not releasing information about an ethics complaint against a judge until the commission files formal charges.

Jim Lawson, executive secretary for the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission, said the six voting members of the commission - made up of judges and citizens - cannot release information until a charge has been determined but said citizens who file complaints are only requested not to release information.

Lawson said the committee essentially reviews a claim and determines if there should be a charge. If one is believe to be warranted, the judge can respond and a hearing takes place that is open to the public.

Some judges are publicly reprimanded, Lawson said, while others are privately admonished or reprimanded. Blonder said Kentucky is too lenient with private admonishments.

Lawson said the committee receives nearly 250 complaints a year, but that many of them are unfounded or should be directed to the court of appeals because an individual is unhappy with their case's outcome.

In 2006, the committee privately admonished or reprimanded six judges, publicly reprimanded one with a 30-day suspension while another's resignation was made public after he resigned. The next year three public reprimands took place while three judges were privately admonished or reprimanded.

Kentucky law requires judges to file annual financial disclosure report to help determine if there is an economic conflict of interest in a case. HALT gave the commonwealth a C for financial disclosure because the filings are not available to the public online, "making it difficult for many litigants to obtain information about a judge's conflicts of interest."

One of the group's biggest gripes is the Kentucky's lack of limitations given to judges to receive reimbursement and compensation from private groups in connection with corporate and special-interest funded trips.

"Corporations and special interests often use expense-paid trips to lavish settings in a thinly veiled attempt to lobby judges," the report said. "Rigorous ethics rules would place monetary caps on the reimbursements and compensation that judges may accept from private groups, but unfortunately most state and federal rules continue to permit members of the judiciary to accept these gifts with few limitations."

The federal court system received an overall D+. Blonder said she hopes the grades send a message to the public.

"At a time when the American public has lost faith in the impartiality and fairness of the nation's judiciary, effective oversight of state and federal judges is vital," Blonder said in a statement. "It's now incumbent on our legislators as well as state and federal high courts to transform a mechanism marred by indifference and secrecy into a system dedicated to upholding the integrity of our nation's judiciary."