AI Generated Opinion Summaries

Decision Information

Decision Content

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

A Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court Judge used his judicial position in December 2003 to advance private interests by engaging in ex parte communications with a special commissioner and a district court judge. This conduct involved attempting to influence child placement in a case concerning his nephew, a family member within the third degree of relationship. The matter was outside his jurisdiction and was being handled by a higher court (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

  • Judicial Standards Commission, November 23, 2004: The Commission accepted a stipulation agreement and consent to discipline entered into by the respondent (para 2).
  • Supreme Court of New Mexico, January 13, 2005: The Court granted the Commission's disciplinary petition and placed the respondent on unsupervised probation for six months (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

  • Judicial Standards Commission: Argued that the respondent's conduct violated multiple Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including upholding judicial integrity, avoiding impropriety, performing duties impartially, and minimizing conflicts with judicial obligations (para 5).
  • Respondent: Admitted to the conduct and agreed to the stipulation agreement and consent to discipline, including the terms of probation and formal reprimand (paras 2, 5).

Legal Issues

  • Did the respondent's conduct constitute willful misconduct in office?
  • What disciplinary measures were appropriate for the respondent's violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct?

Disposition

  • The respondent was disciplined with a deferred one-week suspension without pay, contingent on successful completion of six months of unsupervised probation and compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct (para 8).
  • A formal reprimand was to be published in the Bar Bulletin after the probation period (para 8).

Reasons

Per Curiam (Chief Justice Bosson, Justices Minzner, Serna, Maes, and Chávez):

The Court found that the respondent's actions violated several Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including those requiring judges to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, avoid impropriety, and minimize conflicts between judicial and extrajudicial activities (para 5). The respondent's conduct was deemed willful misconduct in office, as it involved using his judicial position to interfere in a matter outside his jurisdiction (para 6). The Court determined that the recommended disciplinary measures, including probation, deferred suspension, and a formal reprimand, were appropriate to address the violations and ensure compliance with judicial standards (paras 7-8).