Throwback Thursday

20 years ago this month:

  • Reviewing the recommendation of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the Florida Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a former appellate judge for (1) making a false or misleading statement during an attorney discipline proceeding and (2) failing to disclose that an attorney appearing before him was representing a member of his immediate family in highly contentious domestic litigation. Inquiry Concerning Frank, 753 So. 2d 1228 (Florida 2000).
  • Pursuant to consent, the Michigan Supreme Court suspended a judge for 10 days without pay and publicly censured him for (1) knowingly executing a judgment that falsely stated that the defendant had pled guilty to 3 misdemeanors, and (2) knowingly making false and misleading statements to the Judicial Tenure Commission during its investigation. In re Milhouse, 605 N.W.2d 15 (Michigan 2000).
  • Adopting a substantial portion of the findings of the Commission on Judicial Performance, the Mississippi Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge and fined her $1,500 for (1) improperly sentencing a defendant under the wrong statute, doing nothing to correct her error, and stating under oath in her answer to the Commission’s complaint that the defendant had not been sentenced for the crime for which she had sentenced him; and (2) having a reporter arrested for disobeying her order by publishing an article regarding a juvenile proceeding without following correct procedures. Commission on Judicial Performance v. Byers, 757 So. 2d 961 (Mississippi 2000).
  • The Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline removed a former supreme court justice who had been found guilty of 2 felony counts of criminal conspiracy; the Court also ordered that the justice be ineligible to hold judicial office in the future. In re Larsen, 746 A.2d 108 (Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline February 2000).
  • Reviewing the findings of fact and conclusions of law of a judicial conduct panel, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended a judge for 6 months without pay for (1) recurring delay in deciding cases between 1991 and 1998, (2) filing certifications of status of pending cases that falsely represented that no cases were awaiting decision beyond the prescribed period, and (3) stating falsely to the Judicial Commission that he had no cases awaiting decision beyond the prescribed period. In the Matter of Waddick, 605 N.W.2d 861 (Wisconsin 2000).

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s