This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case concerns a probate judge who failed to fulfill her tax obligations, including gross receipts and personal income taxes, over several years. She also misused court facilities for private business activities and failed to pay outstanding photocopying charges to the county. Additionally, she did not cooperate with the Judicial Standards Commission's investigation into her conduct (paras 1, 6-10).
Procedural History
- Judicial Standards Commission, May 10, 2000: The Commission filed a verified petition for discipline after the respondent entered into a plea and stipulation agreement admitting to the allegations and agreeing to disciplinary measures (paras 3-4).
Parties' Submissions
- Judicial Standards Commission: Argued that the respondent's actions constituted willful misconduct in office, violating multiple Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Recommended disciplinary measures, including a formal reprimand, suspension without pay, probation, repayment of liabilities, and cessation of non-judicial use of court facilities (paras 1, 3-4, 6-10).
- Respondent (Probate Judge): Admitted to the factual and legal conclusions in the plea and stipulation agreement and agreed to the proposed disciplinary measures (para 4).
Legal Issues
- Did the respondent's failure to fulfill tax obligations and misuse of court facilities constitute willful misconduct in office?
- What disciplinary measures were appropriate for the respondent's violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct?
Disposition
- The Court approved the recommended disciplinary measures, including a formal reprimand, a two-week unpaid suspension, six months of supervised probation, repayment of outstanding liabilities, and cessation of non-judicial use of court facilities (paras 1, 11-12).
Reasons
Per Chief Justice Pamela B. Minzner, Justice Joseph F. Baca, Justice Gene E. Franchini, Justice Patricio M. Serna, and Justice Petra Jimenez Maes:
The Court found that the respondent's conduct violated multiple Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including those requiring integrity, impartiality, and proper use of judicial office. The respondent's failure to fulfill tax obligations, misuse of court facilities, and lack of cooperation with the Judicial Standards Commission constituted willful misconduct in office. The Court determined that the recommended disciplinary measures were appropriate to address the violations and ensure compliance with judicial standards. The respondent was ordered to comply fully with the imposed discipline and the Code of Judicial Conduct (paras 6-12).