Case Title: In Re Complaint Against Staley

Citation: 241 Neb. 152, 486 N.W.2d 886

Docket Number: 

State: nebraska

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Date: 1992-07-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
486 N.W.2d 886 (1992) 241 Neb. 152 In re COMPLAINT AGAINST William D. STALEY, Judge of the Separate Juvenile Court of Sarpy County, Nebraska. STATE of Nebraska ex rel. COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS, Relator, v. William D. STALEY, Respondent. No. JQ-89-004. Supreme Court of Nebraska. July 31, 1992. *887 Patrick T. O'Brien, of Bauer, Galter, O'Brien & Allan, Lincoln, for relator. E. Dean Hascall, Bellevue, for respondent. BOSLAUGH, WHITE, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN, GRANT, and FAHRNBRUCH, JJ. PER CURIAM. This is an original proceeding in this court upon a complaint filed by the Nebraska Commission on Judicial Qualifications *888 charging, in five counts, misconduct by the respondent, William D. Staley, a judge of the separate juvenile court of Sarpy County. The original complaint was filed on December 26, 1989. An amended complaint was filed by the commission on August 20, 1990. Pursuant to Neb.Const. art. V, § 30, and Neb.Rev.Stat. § 24-721 (Reissue 1989), this court appointed the Honorable Lyle Winkle as special master to conduct hearings concerning the allegations. These hearings commenced on September 17, 1990, and were completed on September 20, 1990. The master found that the charges contained in counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 were supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the respondent's conduct violated Neb.Rev.Stat. § 24-722(1), (2), and (6) (Reissue 1989) and Canon 3A(3) and (4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The commission adopted the master's findings with respect to counts 2 and 3, but dismissed counts 1 and 4. Neither the master nor the commission found sufficient evidence to support the charges contained in count 5. The commission recommended the following disciplinary action against the respondent: On January 25, 1991, the respondent filed a "Petition/Brief" asking this court to modify or reject the commission's recommendations. The statute, § 24-722, which the respondent is alleged to have violated provides in relevant part: The relevant portion of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct as adopted by this court is as follows: The commentary to Canon 3A(3) states: "The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business *889 of the court. Courts can be efficient and business-like while being patient and deliberate." The object of the Code of Judicial Conduct adopted by this court is to delineate what conduct should be avoided for its prejudicial potential. Therefore, a clear violation of the code constitutes, at a minimum, a violation of § 24-722(6). In re Complaint Against Kelly, 225 Neb. 583, 407 N.W.2d 182 (1987). Since this court received no evidence in addition to that heard by the master, the matter is to be reviewed in this court de novo upon the record made before the master. In re Complaint Against Kelly, supra. This court must first determine, upon its own independent inquiry, whether the charges against the respondent are supported by clear and convincing evidence; next, we must determine which, if any, canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and subsections of § 24-722 may have been violated; and finally, we must determine what discipline, if any, is appropriate under the circumstances. In re Complaint Against Kelly, supra. Count 1 of the amended complaint alleged: With respect to the allegations involving Lisa Swinton, the record shows that on February 25, 1988, Swinton represented the Nebraska Department of Social Services (DSS) at a hearing before the respondent in a case involving the placement of a juvenile at the Lincoln Regional Center. Previously the juvenile had been placed at the Youth Development Center at Geneva, Nebraska, but when he was returned to Sarpy County pending placement in the Lincoln Regional Center it was determined that an interim placement for the juvenile would be necessary until an opening became available at the Lincoln Regional Center. A conflict then arose regarding the juvenile's interim placement. DSS personnel contended, on the advice of a psychologist, that the youth should be placed in a locked, secure facility, but a probation officer sought placement for the juvenile in a less restrictive facility. Although the probation officer requested a hearing to resolve the dispute, the conflict was resolved prior to the hearing when space at the Lincoln Regional Center unexpectedly became immediately available for the youth. Nevertheless, the respondent proceeded to conduct a hearing concerning the youth's placement. At this hearing the respondent voiced general displeasure with DSS' placement of juveniles, and the hearing concluded with the following exchange: ... And I think some things have to be changed in the Department of Social Services so we don't keep putting kids in *890 places they don't belong just because we don't have any other choice. It is clear from the record that Swinton was not allowed to present and defend DSS' position with respect to the placement of the youth in question. Of course, when space at the Lincoln Regional Center suddenly became available, the placement issue became moot and there was no purpose for the hearing. Nevertheless, the respondent did conduct a hearing, during the course of which he berated DSS, the agency which Swinton represented. Thus, particularly in view of the respondent's condemnation of DSS, the respondent's conduct with respect to Swinton was at least a violation of Canon 3A(4), which requires a judge to "accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or a party's lawyer, full right to be heard according to law...." The amended complaint also alleges misconduct by the respondent in a case involving a mother who was having behavioral problems with her daughter. Apparently, in that case the respondent found that it would be in the best interests of the daughter for her to be placed in the custody of her father, who lived in South Carolina. The mother testified that the respondent "seemed to be picking on me" and that "he had a very arrogant look on his face." According to the mother, when she asked how she was going to have a relationship with her daughter if the youth were sent to South Carolina, the respondent said, "You may never have a relationship with her." Another case which was heard by the respondent involved a 16-year-old boy who had been cited for a curfew violation. On March 13, 1989, the juvenile appeared before the respondent for his arraignment on the curfew violation; at the hearing the juvenile was accompanied by his attorney, his parents, and two uncles. However, the respondent refused to allow the juvenile's two uncles to remain in the courtroom and required all persons not a party to the proceeding to leave the courtroom. After the juvenile had admitted the curfew violation, his attorney requested an immediate disposition and waived a record of the dispositional hearing. There is no indication that the juvenile's mother and custodial parent waived a record. Then, before proceeding with the dispositional hearing, the respondent ordered everyone except the juvenile to leave the courtroom, but apparently, his attorney was allowed to remain in the room with the juvenile and the respondent. After being excluded from the courtroom for 15 to 20 minutes, the juvenile's mother was allowed to return to the courtroom. According to the juvenile's attorney, the respondent's private conversation with the juvenile consisted primarily of a discussion of the effect of the juvenile's father's alcoholism upon the juvenile and his family. The record further shows that the respondent was well acquainted with the juvenile's father, a deputy Sarpy County attorney who is divorced from the juvenile's mother, and that the respondent and the juvenile's father had attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings together. Later, the juvenile's mother spoke with her son and discussed what the respondent *891 had said to him in the courtroom in her absence. The mother testified that when she attempted to obtain a transcript of the court proceeding, court personnel initially said that a transcript would be made available to her, but she was later informed by court personnel that "[t]he Judge said [she] couldn't have it." She knew that the respondent's "private dispositional hearing" with her son would not be available, since that portion of the proceeding had occurred after the respondent had ordered the court reporter and everyone else except the juvenile to leave the courtroom. She further testified that the juvenile himself was denied access to a transcript of the proceeding. After her exclusion from the court proceeding and the refusal of her request for a transcript, the mother hired an attorney; her attorney was refused access to the juvenile's court file. Later, the respondent conducted a second and final dispositional hearing with respect to the juvenile, at which jurisdiction over the juvenile was terminated. This hearing was attended by the juvenile and his attorney, the mother and her attorney, and an aunt who was initially present for the hearing. Referring to her sister, the aunt, the mother testified: "She came into the courtroom with me and we were all getting ready to be seated, the Judge ... yelled, `The lady in the back, get outta here.' Which, she was the only lady in the back, so she left." The mother then described what transpired next: (Emphasis supplied.) The mother's attorney, Michael Lustgarten, testified that the respondent's tone was stern and abrupt when the judge told him to put his pen down. The mother testified that the respondent's conduct "shocked" her, then continued to describe what transpired during the hearing: With respect to count 1 of the amended complaint, the master found: However, the commission determined that the respondent's comment to Swinton (i.e., "You'll excuse me, Counselor, if I just don't believe you") "in the context in which it was made, did not support the allegation that Judge Staley failed to be patient, dignified, and courteous." And with respect to the case involving the juvenile charged with a curfew violation, the commission determined that Count 2 of the amended complaint alleged: The master found that the respondent regularly "conducts dispositional and `further' dispositional hearings without providing for a verbatim record by dismissing his court reporter and announcing his decision informally" and that this practice continued to the date of the hearing regarding the charges against the respondent. While the record does not show that the respondent has ever refused to permit the making of a verbatim record where one has been specifically requested, it is clear that he regularly conducts proceedings "off the record" without having all of the parties waive a verbatim transcript as required by In re Interest of A.M.H., 233 Neb. 610, 447 N.W.2d 40 (1989). In In re Interest of A.M.H., a case originating in Judge Staley's court, this court stated: 233 Neb. at 618-19, 447 N.W.2d at 46. According to the master, the respondent "normally invites the off the record proceedings by inquiring of the attorneys as to whether they want it on the record." Indeed, the testimony of Deputy Sarpy County Attorney Larry Gendler indicates that Judge Staley apparently deems the State to have waived a record by its nonappearance at many dispositional hearings. The record also indicates that Judge Staley may deem parties appearing pro se to have waived a record, as he apparently does not even inquire as to whether such parties waive a verbatim record. The case involving the juvenile accused of a curfew violation is an example of this. That case is discussed above with respect to count 1. While the juvenile's mother in that case was aware that the respondent had asked the court reporter to leave the room when he spoke with the juvenile, it is clear that she did not waive a record of any portion of the proceeding. With respect to the matter of waiving the rights of parties, in In re Interest of D.M.B., 240 Neb. 349, 360, 481 N.W.2d 905, 913 (1992), a juvenile case, we stated: "Counsel cannot waive rights which are personal to their clients. Personal rights *893 of a litigant must be waived by the litigant personally." It is also clear that the mother was a party to the proceeding. See Neb.Rev. Stat. § 43-245(2) (Reissue 1988). By ordering the mother out of the courtroom, the respondent wrongfully denied her her full right to be present and to be heard according to the law, in violation of Canon 3A(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Furthermore, the respondent does not contend that the case involving the mother is an isolated incident, as indicated by his own testimony: "Q. Okay. It's not the first time you've sent parents out of the courtroom when you talked to a child in similar circumstances, is it? [JUDGE STALEY:] I don't have a specific recollection of the case, but I wouldn't deny your comment." In addition, in the instance discussed previously with respect to count 1, Swinton was denied an opportunity to be heard according to the law when the respondent abruptly adjourned the hearing at which she attempted to respond to his criticism of DSS. The commission found the following with respect to count 2: In his petition/brief, the respondent demonstrates his lack of understanding and his disregard of the law by engaging in a lengthy discussion of the definition of a "court of record," noting that such a court is not required to create a verbatim transcript of all proceedings. He also argues that a juvenile dispositional hearing is a "post-trial proceeding," falling under rule 4b(11) of the Rules Relating to Official Court Reporters, rather than "testimony or other oral proceedings," falling under rule 4b(2) of those rules. Rule 4b(2) requires a verbatim record of "testimony or other oral proceedings," while rule 4b(11) requires a verbatim record of "[a]ny post-trial proceedings, at the request of counsel, any party, or the court." (Emphasis supplied.) Although the respondent argues that based upon the Rules Relating to Official Court Reporters, dispositional hearings need not be recorded verbatim absent a request for such recordation, he is completely in error. The dispositional phase of a juvenile proceeding *894 is an integral and extremely important part of the proceeding. Although the meaning of "post-trial proceedings" is not specifically defined in the Rules Relating to Official Court Reporters, rule 4c states that "[t]he recording of any part of the proceedings herein required to be made may not be waived without the consent of the judge." (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, the opinion in In re Interest of A.M.H., when read in conjunction with rule 4c of the Rules Relating to Official Court Reporters, makes it abundantly clear that a dispositional hearing is an "oral proceeding," falling under rule 4b(2), requiring a verbatim transcript unless waived. This court made it clear in that case that verbatim transcripts of dispositional hearings in a separate juvenile court are required in the absence of a valid waiver by all parties. Nevertheless, with reference to this court's statement in In re Interest of A.M.H., 233 Neb. at 618-19, 447 N.W.2d at 46, that "[t]he separate juvenile court is a court of record.... In the absence of a valid waiver by all parties to the proceedings, a verbatim transcript of those proceedings shall be made and preserved," Judge Staley asserts: Judge Staley also contends that the Guidelines for Use by Nebraska Courts in Determining When and Under What Conditions a Hearing Before Such Court May Be Closed in Whole or in Part to the Public, a part of the rules of the Nebraska Supreme Court, should not apply to juvenile courts, asserting that the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges' Handbook for New Juvenile Court Judges suggests that "[t]he hearing itself should be private." However, when read more completely, the handbook states in part: (Emphasis supplied.) Regnal W. Garff, National Council of Juvenile Court Judges, Handbook for New Juvenile Court Judges 14-15 (1973). Count 3 of the amended complaint alleged: 3. That Judge William Staley violated the provisions of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 24-722(6) (Reissue 1985) in that he engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and that brings the judicial office into disrepute in that he entered a Findings and Order and Capias on August 28, 1989 in a case appearing at Docket 21 Page 194 and Docket 21 Page 274, which Capias directed that a juvenile "be taken into custody and placed in the custody of Sarpy County for detention by delivery to Laddie Kozeny, Sarpy County Administrator", and that on the 29th of August, 1989 he entered an amended Capias in each case which provided for the delivery of the juveniles to "Laddie Kozeny, Sarpy County Administrator or other county department personnel designated by the Sarpy County Board of Commissioners", when such orders were beyond his legal *895 authority and constituted a violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 24-722(1) (Reissue 1985), willfull [sic] misconduct in office, and Neb.Rev.Stat. § 24-722(6) (Reissue 1985), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice or that brings the judicial office into disrepute. The record shows that on Monday, August 28, 1989, the respondent issued two capias orders directing law enforcement officers to take two juveniles into custody and place them in the custody of "Laddie Kozeny, Sarpy County Administrator." No capias order issued by the respondent prior to those issued on August 28, 1989, had ordered the Sarpy County administrator to take custody of a juvenile who was the subject of a capias order. The county administrator is more in the nature of a business officer, having fiscal and administrative duties but no direct authority for involvement with the detention of persons detained by law enforcement officials or the courts of Sarpy County. Prior capias orders had instead placed juveniles in the custody of designated youth detention facilities in other counties or in the custody of probation officers who then secured placement for a detained juvenile. The circumstances surrounding the issuance of the capias orders reveal that for several years prior to the issuance of these orders, the respondent had voiced his concern that action needed to be taken to provide a juvenile detention facility in Sarpy County. According to the respondent, he had been kept apprised of a remodeling project at the Sarpy County Jail which was to result in a temporary juvenile detention facility in Sarpy County. Then, on August 24, 1989, the respondent learned that the Sarpy County Board of County Commissioners had decided to cancel the remodeling project, thereby eliminating the creation of a temporary juvenile detention facility. The respondent testified that it was his opinion that the county had a legal responsibility to provide a detention alternative with respect to juveniles who were subject to the court's jurisdiction and that he issued the capias orders on August 28, 1989, to get the attention of Sarpy County officials and to make them aware of this responsibility. After the two capias orders were issued on August 28, 1989, copies of the orders were delivered to Laddie Kozeny. Kozeny brought the orders to the attention of members of the Sarpy County Attorney's office, which then sought to have the orders amended. The respondent amended the orders the following day, August 29, 1989, but merely changed the placement of the custody of the juveniles in "Laddie Kozeny, Sarpy County Administrator, or other county department designated by the Sarpy County Board of Commissioners." (Emphasis supplied.) Then members of the Sarpy County Attorney's office again sought amendment of the capias orders, while Deputy Sarpy County Attorney Gendler prepared a petition for a writ of mandamus to be filed in this court with respect to the capias orders. On August 31, 1989, after a meeting with members of the Sarpy County Attorney's office, the respondent finally vacated the amended capias orders, and instead issued capiases directing the subject juveniles to be placed in the "temporary custody of the Sarpy County Sheriff for continued detention in a secure juvenile facility, or as approved by the Juvenile Probation Office." Despite the issuance and amendment of the capias order, the subject juveniles were never taken into custody. While the respondent testified that the capias orders were issued to get the attention of the Sarpy County Board of County Commissioners, the record shows that some county officials believed that Judge Staley's capias orders were issued vindictively as a result of a dispute between the judge and Kozeny concerning parking spaces at the courthouse. Kozeny testified that as part of his duties as Sarpy County administrator, he had reassigned parking spaces during the week of August 21, 1989. According to Kozeny, the respondent confronted him on Friday, August 25, 1989, regarding the reassignment of parking spaces, and Kozeny noted that the respondent "might have been a little irritated that we didn't notify *896 him that we were going to make the change." Kozeny testified that when he informed the respondent that the parking space reassignment was "going to stand," the judge "said something about, `Well, we'll see about that.' And then he left." The record indicates that apparently the parking dispute was resolved early the following Monday, August 28, 1989, before the respondent issued the capias orders, but upon receiving copies of the capiases later that same day, Kozeny thought they might be somehow connected to the dispute concerning parking spaces. It is apparent that this dispute over parking spaces may have been on the minds of then Chief Deputy Sarpy County Attorney Michael Wellman and Deputy Sarpy County Attorney Gendler when they attempted to arrange the meeting with the respondent after which the amended capiases were vacated. Wellman and Gendler each testified that they did not wish to meet with the respondent in his chambers because they were afraid that the judge would find them in contempt of court. The meeting which was arranged took place in the county attorney's office and included the respondent, Wellman, Gendler, and former Sarpy County Attorney John Patrick Kelly. Wellman's testimony describes the meeting: The commission adopted the findings and conclusions of the master with respect to count 3 of the amended complaint. The report of the master states: Count 4 of the amended complaint alleged: Count 4, like count 1, involves DSS attorney Swinton, who claims to have been excluded from in camera proceedings. One instance in which Swinton claims to have been excluded from in camera proceedings pertains to a case involving a 15-year-old boy who was residing with his 36-year-old wife in Iowa after having married her in North Dakota. In that case, Deputy Sarpy County Attorney Gendler was concerned over the juvenile's welfare and the legality of his marriage after his parents had reported him as a runaway. Eventually the boy was returned to Nebraska, and the respondent placed him in the custody of DSS. DSS then placed him in Saint Joseph Hospital because, according to Gendler, "[t]here were some concerns also that he had been brainwashed, that maybe there was alcohol or drugs going on and for that reason, we wanted him in a secure environment to be evaluated." The attorney for the juvenile's wife, Vincent Sutera, then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking his release. Swinton later informed Gendler that, contrary to his wishes, DSS intended to "terminate [the boy] from their case load." When asked his reaction to this, Gendler testified: The record shows that Gendler's conversation with the respondent took place when the parties interested in the case met in Sarpy County. Swinton's testimony describes the circumstances: *898 A. Then there was a movement of all the parties towards the courtroom to see if they were ready for hearing. Gendler testified that while he did recall the meeting of the parties described above, he did not recall that Swinton had been excluded from any proceeding. Swinton also testified that she was excluded from court proceedings in a case involving another juvenile who had been placed in the custody of DSS. According to Swinton, on one occasion in September 1987, interested parties, including the juvenile's guardian ad litem, Patricia Lamberty, met with the respondent in his courtroom to resolve a dispute concerning the child's continued placement. Swinton testified as follows regarding this proceeding: Swinton also described an October 22, 1987, hearing involving parties interested in the same matter: In her testimony, Swinton also described two other occasions in which she was or may have been excluded from proceedings concerning the juvenile. On February 9, 1989, Swinton appeared for a proceeding at the request of the DSS caseworker who had asked Swinton to be there with her because she believed that her case plan would be in dispute. According to Swinton: "We both went to the courthouse and waited. We did see that Ms. Lamberty was there and would come in and out of the Judge's office, but then nothing else happened." When asked whether she inquired as to what was going on in the judge's chambers, Swinton testified: "I did not inquire of Ms. Lamberty what was going on. I did though go into the office and let them know I was there.... Later, someone who'sI believe it was Ms. Lamberty, then said that we could go, there wasn't going to be anything further." On March 15, 1988, Swinton appeared for another hearing regarding the juvenile's placement; according to Swinton, DSS and the guardian ad litem, Lamberty, had differing positions regarding the juvenile's placement. Swinton's testimony described what transpired on March 15, 1988: Q. Was there a proceeding on that Well, let's back up. Was [sic] there any events occurring in the Judge's chambers on that day? Contrary to Swinton's testimony, when Lamberty was asked if she could recall any in camera conferences with the respondent to the exclusion of Swinton, Lamberty responded: "Not to my knowledge." Lamberty also testified that she did not recall telling Swinton, "[T]he Judge didn't want you in there," and further testified that she would recall the statement if she had made it. The respondent testified that he did not recall telling Swinton or any other attorney that he did not want him or her to appear before him. The master found that the allegations made in count 4 of the amended complaint were supported by the evidence, stating: However, the commission dismissed count 4 of the amended complaint, stating: Count 5 of the amended complaint alleged: *901 The record shows that the respondent made statements similar to those described in the amended complaint, but it also shows they were conditional statements. For example, in at least two instances the judge told juveniles something to the effect that "[i]f you don't change your ways you'll be a little burned out whore by the time you're 21." Such statements were made to "streetwise" juveniles, and according to the DSS caseworkers, in each of the cases the comments appeared to have had a positive effect and prompted improvement in the juvenile's behavior. With respect to the AIDS/suicide comment, the record indicates that the respondent's comments were to the effect that he thought that if DSS did not take serious action the juvenile would die of AIDS or suicide. While Swinton testified that the respondent stated that he "hoped" a juvenile would die of AIDS or suicide, this testimony was not corroborated by other witnesses. While the master concluded that some of the respondent's statements "cannot be classified as dignified," neither the master nor the commission found a violation of either § 24-722(6) or Canon 3A(3) with respect to count 5. As stated previously, the master found that the charges contained in counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 were supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the respondent's conduct violated § 24-722(1), (2), and (6) and Canon 3A(3) and (4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The commission adopted the master's findings with respect to counts 2 and 3, but dismissed counts 1 and 4. Neither the master nor the commission found sufficient evidence to support the charges contained in count 5. From our de novo review of the record, we find, as did the master, that counts 1 through 4 are supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the respondent has violated § 24-722(1), (2), and (6) and Canon 3A(3) and (4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. We further find that the recommendation of the commission, that the respondent be publicly reprimanded, is inadequate under the facts and circumstances of this case. This court has, in two relatively recent instances, issued opinions sanctioning members of the judiciary. In In re Complaint Against Kneifl, 217 Neb. 472, 351 N.W.2d 693 (1984), we suspended a member of the judiciary for 3 months for threatening reprisals against and cursing certain police officers who were engaged in lawful performance of their duties and for asking a county attorney and his partner to "help or see what could be done" for an acquaintance who had been charged with driving while under the influence of intoxicants. In In re Complaint Against Kelly, 225 Neb. 583, 407 N.W.2d 182 (1987), we removed a member of the judiciary who acted to prevent the timely prosecution of his son for a traffic violation. In In re Complaint Against Kneifl, we discussed sanctions which have been administered in other jurisdictions for various violations of the standards for judicial conduct. However, in In re Complaint Against Kneifl we also noted that 217 Neb. at 485, 351 N.W.2d at 700. In determining the appropriate discipline to be imposed in this case, we have considered the entire record as whole. In doing so, we first note that not only has Judge Staley been discourteous, in violation of Canon 3A(3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, he in fact denied parties to proceedings before his court the right to participate in those proceedings. A prime example *902 of this is the case involving the juvenile who had been charged with a curfew violation, where during the court proceeding the respondent ordered the juvenile's mother and other members of the juvenile's family to leave the courtroom so that he could talk privately to the juvenile. Furthermore, the respondent's own testimony indicates that his conduct in that case was not merely an isolated incident. While the respondent's denial of the right of legally interested parties to be heard according to the law violates Canon 3A(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, what is more alarming is that it is representative of a course of conduct which appears to be systematically designed to preclude appellate review of proceedings in his court. As stated previously, the master found that the respondent regularly conducts "off the record" proceedings without having all parties waive a verbatim transcript as required by In re Interest of A.M.H., 233 Neb. 610, 447 N.W.2d 40 (1989). Despite the fact that In re Interest of A.M.H. was an appeal from his own court, it is evident that the respondent has failed and refused to adhere to our mandate in that case requiring verbatim transcripts in juvenile courts and continued to improperly conduct proceedings off the record, as demonstrated in In re Interest of L.P. and R.P., 240 Neb. 112, 480 N.W.2d 421 (1992), another appeal from the respondent's court. An example of the respondent's conspicuous desire to preclude the recordation of proceedings in his court is his strange behavior in ordering a party's attorney to put his pen down and declaring that he did not allow writing in his courtroom. A juvenile court is not a star chamber where proceedings may be conducted in secrecy, in the absence of some of the parties, and free from appellate review. The record in this case clearly and convincingly shows that the respondent has deliberately conducted proceedings in his court in such a manner as to discourage and prevent parties from appealing his decisions to an appellate court. Such behavior constitutes willful misconduct in office and also is a willful disregard of his duty, in violation of § 24-722(1) and (2). We finally note the capias orders issued by the respondent which have been discussed. The record clearly and convincingly shows that these orders were issued in bad faith in an attempt to manipulate county officials through the wrongful use of a judicial order. See In re Complaint Against Kelly, supra. While the respondent testified that he issued the capias orders to get the attention of county officials regarding the need for a youth detention facility, the record is persuasive that the capias orders were issued, at least in part, as a retaliatory move in a dispute over the assignment of parking spaces. In either case, the respondent's conduct was an abuse of judicial authority. We believe that the respondent's conduct, as illustrated by the entire record before us, demonstrates that he is unfit to continue to serve in a judicial capacity as a juvenile court judge. We therefore order that William D. Staley be removed from office forthwith. JUDGMENT OF REMOVAL. HASTINGS, C.J., not participating.