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 Metropolitan Court Judge adjudicated over 20 cases involving family members, friends, and staff members' relatives without holding evidentiary hearings or involving state representatives. This conduct occurred between 2004 and 2007 and included dismissing charges, deferring cases, and canceling bench warrants. The judge blamed his staff for these actions, but this explanation was deemed not credible (paras 1, 3, and 5).
Procedural History
- Supreme Court of New Mexico, February 6, 2007: The judge was fined $500, placed on six months of supervised probation, and formally reprimanded for improperly delegating judicial duties in a related matter (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Judicial Standards Commission: Argued that the judge violated multiple provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, committed willful misconduct, and undermined public confidence in the judiciary. Recommended a 90-day suspension without pay, a formal reprimand, submission of corrective policies, and payment of costs (paras 4-5, 13).
- Respondent (Judge): Did not challenge the Commission's findings or conclusions and requested the Court adopt the recommended discipline (para 6).
Legal Issues
- Did the judge’s actions constitute willful misconduct in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct?
- What is the appropriate disciplinary action for the judge’s misconduct?
Disposition
- The judge was removed from the bench (para 22).
Reasons
Per Curiam:
The Court unanimously found that the judge’s conduct violated multiple provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including rules requiring impartiality, avoidance of impropriety, and recusal in cases involving personal relationships (paras 4, 8-12). The judge’s actions, including ex parte adjudications and blaming staff, demonstrated a lack of respect for judicial duties and undermined public confidence in the judiciary (paras 16-19). The Court rejected the Commission’s recommendation for a 90-day suspension, emphasizing the seriousness of the misconduct and the judge’s pattern of behavior, which persisted even during an ongoing investigation (paras 13-18). Removal from office was deemed the only appropriate remedy to preserve the integrity of the judiciary (paras 18, 22).