Case Name: MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE v. Joseph LEWIS
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 2005-03-31
Citations: 913 So. 2d 266
Docket Number: No. 2004-JP-01002-SCT
Parties: MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE v. Joseph LEWIS.
Judges: . COBB, P.J., CARLSON, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ., CONCUR. GRAVES, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY WALLER, P.J., AND . EASLEY, J. DIAZ, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 913
Pages: 266–278

Head Matter:
MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE v. Joseph LEWIS.
No. 2004-JP-01002-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
March 31, 2005.
Luther T. Brantley, III, Darlene D. Ballard, attorneys for appellant.
Julie Ann Epps, Jackson, attorney for appellee.

Opinion:
SMITH, Chief Justice,
for the Court.
¶ 1. On June 9, 2003, the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance filed a Formal Complaint charging Joseph Lewis, Justice Court Judge, District Three, Hinds County, Mississippi, with judicial misconduct constituting willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute and is actionable under Article 6, Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, as amended, and violative of Canon 3(B)(12) of our existing Code of Judicial Conduct.
¶ 2. On January 14, 2004, the hearing on these charges occurred before the Commission's three-member Committee. On April 27, 2004, the Committee filed its Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recom mendations. On May 7, 2004, counsel for the Commission filed written objections to the Committee recommendations. The full Commission rendered its findings, conclusions and recommendations as follows: The Commission found that Judge Lewis had engaged in numerous ex parte communications with litigants in person and by telephonic means. The Commission noted that three females made allegations of sexual advances by Judge Lewis, but these allegations were not considered by the Commission in its findings. The Commission noted two prior public reprimands by this Court against Judge Lewis for one of the same reasons as now under consideration, Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Lewis, 830 So.2d 1138 (Miss.2002), Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Lewis, 801 So.2d 704 (Miss.2001), and that Judge Lewis never paid the fines or costs assessed against him by this Court and was never publicly reprimanded in open court as ordered by this Court.
¶ 3. The Commission found that Judge Lewis violated Canons 1, 2 A, 3 B(l), 3 B(2), 3 B(3), 3 B(4), 3 B(7), and 3 E(l)(a) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Article 6, Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890. The Commission recommended to this Court that Judge Lewis be removed from office and assessed costs of the present proceeding in the sum of $2,080.83.
¶ 4. After careful consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case, this Court removes Judge Lewis from office and orders that he pay the costs of this proceedings in the amount of $ 2,080.23 and all costs awarded in prior proceedings.
FACTS
¶ 5. Three different women filed complaints against Judge Lewis. The Commission dismissed the complaint of one of the women's complaint. On June 21, 2002, Judge Lewis engaged in ex parte communications with Jane Doe, a fictitious name, about a judgment he had entered against her regarding a rental agreement. The amount of the judgment against Doe was $1,430 plus interest. After making payments to the plaintiff, Doe, the defendant was confused and upset when her wages continued to be garnished even after she was evicted. When she went to the Courthouse, in hopes of finding an explanation for what she felt was unjust, she came into contact with Judge Lewis, whom she had never met before this specific instance. Once Doe entered Judge Lewis' office so that they could discuss her case, he made several inappropriate sexual advances, all of which she refused. Some of these sexu-ál advances included his suggestion that they go to a private,' secluded area in the courthouse. Judge Lewis began their conversation by describing in sexually explicit detail an encounter with another woman. Judge Lewis denied this account. No other witnesses were privy to the conversation. Judge Lewis informed Doe that he would help her and explained that all he' had to do was get her back to court to stop the garnishment. When asked if Judge Lewis expected something from Doe in return for his "helping" her, she stated "[t]hat he wanted me to have some type of involvement with him in order for him to assist me in what I needed, because he knew the specifics of what to do, and he had the power to help me . I had been evicted, and I was desperate for help. And I felt that he was expecting me to exchange a favor with him for help I needed for my desperation." Judge Lewis also called Doe by telephone at her home, continuing to assure her that he was "helping" her or working on a resolution for her case.
¶ 6. Rhonda Roe, a fictitious name, the second complainant, filed a civil action in Judge Lewis' court which involved another woman stalking her. Roe had never met Judge Lewis prior to filing this civil action. Judge Lewis had numerous ex parte communications with Roe, in person and by phone, and made sexual advances toward Roe while in his office during one of those meetings. Judge Lewis began the sexual conversation with Roe, commented on how attractive Roe was and said that he was interested in her. Judge Lewis further noted how pretty her hair was and how her ex-boyfriend was going to be sorry for leaving her. He thus told Roe that he wanted to come by her house to see the damage that the defendant in her case had done to her ear. Roe testified that Judge Lewis did come by her house, but she did not open the door. Again, Judge Lewis denied the allegations, and there were no other witnesses. When asked if Judge Lewis initiated the phone calls, Roe stated "I can't remember, but whenever we would — we would talk on the phone, it was always — it was hardly ever about my case. Always pertaining to him and getting with him." Judge Lewis improperly dismissed Roe's default judgment and proceeded with the hearing of a counter-suit against Roe after numerous ex parte communications with both parties.
¶ 7. Judge Lewis has never been publicly reprimanded in open court and has failed to pay costs or fines assessed against him for his two previous public reprimands involving the same issues as the case sub judice, as ordered by this Court. On January 14, 2004, Judge Lewis openly admitted that he had not paid any of his fines during the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance's Inquiry Concerning a Judge that was heard before the Commission Tribunal. When asked if he was assessed with costs in the amount of $2, 474.52 and if he had paid these costs, Judge .Lewis answered "no ma'am." Then, when asked if on January 3, 2002, a mandate was issued by this Court whereby he was publicly reprimanded and assessed costs in the amount of $572.01, Judge Lewis stated "[y]es ma'am, I was aware of that." When asked if the costs had been paid, Judge Lewis answered "[n]o ma'am, nor have I been publicly reprimanded." Finally, Judge Lewis was asked if he agreed with the fact that in December 2002, he received, a public reprimand, from this Court, and was assessed costs in that action. He agreed and when asked if the costs, which amounted to $496.40, had been paid, he responded by saying "[n]o ma'am."
¶ 8. The Commission found more than sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof against Judge Lewis for violation of Counts One and Three of the Formal Complaint, which consisted of ongoing ex parte communications and improper dismissal of Roe's default judgment. The Commission, though not convinced by clear and convincing evidence of claims of sexual misconduct by Judge Lewis against the three women, nevertheless, noted that "the Commission does feel that it is more than mere coincidence that three different women; who are perfect strangers to each other, have made sexual misconduct allegations against the same individual, the Respondent, which allegedly occurred on different occasions, during different times of the year, and even in different years." The Commission did not consider these allegations in making its recommendation to this Court. The Commission recommended that Judge Lewis be removed from office and assessed costs in the amount of $2,080.83.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 9. "The standard of review for judicial misconduct proceedings is de novo." Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Per formcmce v. Boykin, 763 So.2d 872, 874 (Miss.2000) (citing Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Gunn, 614 So.2d 387, 389 (Miss.1993)). The Commission's findings, based on clear and convincing evidence, are given "great deference." Id. This Court, however, is obligated to conduct an independent inquiry. Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Neal, 774 So.2d 414, 416 (Miss.2000). "Even though the Commission's findings are considered, this Court is not bound by the findings and additional sanctions may be imposed." Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Warren, 791 So.2d 194, 196-97 (Miss.2001) (citing Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Whitten, 687 So.2d 744, 746 (Miss.1997)). The Commission did not consider the allegations of the three women in making its recommendation to this Court. However, we can and have considered the allegations of two of the women, Doe and Roe, which we find are meritorious, credible, and thus aggravating with regards to the disposition of this matter.
ANALYSIS
I. Whether Judge Lewis' Conduct Constitutes Willful Misconduct in Office and Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice Which Brings the Judicial Office into Disrepute Pursuant to Section 177a of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, as Amended, and a Violation of Canons 1, 2 a 2 b, 3 b(l), 3 b(2), 3 b(3), 3 b(4), 3 b(7) and 3 e (1)(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi Judges.
¶ 10. The Commission found that Judge Lewis violated the above-cited canons and Section 177A of the Constitution by repeatedly engaging in ex parte communications with litigants based upon the clear and convincing evidence and testimony at the hearing. More critically, Judge Lewis himself admitted these allegations regarding the ex parte communications. We agree with the Commission and also find Judge Lewis to be in violation of the canons based on the clear and convincing evidence found within the testimony of Jane Doe and Rhonda Roe regarding his repeated engagement in ex parte communication with and sexual advances toward litigants in his court.
¶ 11. By engaging in ex parte communications, Judge Lewis denied the parties the safeguards afforded them as well as their expectations that they can present evidence to an unbiased trier of fact, thereby disrupting the requirement of order and decorum in proceedings before the judge. Judge Lewis' persistence in violating the rules against ex parte communication, create an appearance of special treatment for the litigant, thereby tainting the dignity of the judicial system as a whole. By engaging in ex parte communications with litigants, both alone with litigants in his chambers and by telephone calls often initiated by Judge Lewis, he failed to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Such conduct brings the integrity of the judiciary into serious question in clear violation of Canon 1. Such conduct not only created an appearance of impropriety, but in fact, is an actual impropriety in that he failed to respect and comply with the law in violation of Canon 2 A. Judge Lewis, by discussing litigant's cases ex parte, conveyed the impression that these litigants were in a special position to influence the judge in violation of Canon 2 B. Canon 3 B requires disqualification based upon Judge Lewis' ex parte communications and personal knowledge acquired from the litigants about the cases, so he consequently violated Canon 3 B. Clearly, Judge Lewis' repeated participation in ex parte communications was a violation of Canon 3 B(2), in that he was not faithful to the law. Judge Lewis also failed to require order and decorum in proceedings before him. Further, it was completely impossible for him to have presented himself as an unbiased trier of fact. Judge Lewis' repeated ex parte communications with litigants created an appearance of special treatment for the litigant, thereby tainting the dignity of the judicial system as a whole. Judge Lewis thus violated Canons 3 B(3) and 3 B(4).
¶ 12. Canon 3 B(7) is the canon clearly prohibiting ex parte communications. By repeatedly engaging in ex parte communications with litigants in his private chambers to discuss their cases and initiating telephone communication with litigants, Judge Lewis violated this canon. In Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Chinn, 611 So.2d 849, 852 (Miss.1992), this Court, considering Canon 3 A(4), the predecessor of, current 3 B(7), stated, "[f]or a judge to merely listen to another person involved in pending litigation is a violation of Canon 3 A(4)." See also Miss. Comm'n of Judicial Performance v. Dodds, 680 So.2d 180, 190-91 (Miss.1996).
¶ 13. In addition to Judge Lewis' aforementioned violations, this Court is even more disturbed by his prior record before the Commission as well as this Court. On October 23, 2000, the Commission issued a private admonishment and assessed court costs for an incident where Judge Lewis issued an arrest warrant for a Jackson police officer wherein Judge Lewis had been a witness to an alleged incident, about which he had ex parte communications with a participant in the incident. He also called the media about a police roadblock and verbally attacked the Mayor of Jackson for what he perceived as police harassment of black-owned businesses. Judge Lewis agreed that his "continuing course of misconduct'.' was inappropriate, and he agreed to reacquaint himself with the judicial canons so that similar conduct would not occur again.
¶ 14. Similarly, in Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Lewis, 801 So.2d 704 (Miss.2001), this Court, in considering Judge Lewis' ex parte communications with litigants from the Alcohol Beverage Control Division, accepted the recommendation of the Commission and assessed court costs and a public reprimand. Also, in Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Lewis, 830 So.2d 1138, 1139 (Miss.2002), Judge Lewis retained possession of a firearm that was seized from a defendant that had been charged with spotlighting a deer and using improper shot size. Judge Lewis allowed the defendant to plead guilty to failure to dim headlights. Id. The Commission recommended a public reprimand and assessed court costs which this Court accepted. Id. at 1144. This Court noted that Judge Lewis had been disciplined on two prior occasions. Id. at 1143.
¶ 15. It is undisputably obvious to this Court that Judge Lewis has miserably failed to adhere to the Canons. His prior disciplinary proceedings have apparently been to no avail, as Judge Lewis has not altered his repeated violations of the prohibition of ex parte communication with litigants. Judge Lewis has engaged in lengthy patterns of repeated misconduct and continues to display a flagrant disregard for the Canons, the authority of this Court, and the law he is. charged with adhering to. In re Collins, 524 So.2d 553, 557 (Miss.1987). Judge Lewis' history, in addition to his continued ex parte communications, constitutes a myriad of violations of the Canons. Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Gunn, 614 So.2d 387, 390 (Miss.1993).
¶ 16. This Court has previously stated, "[a] judge may also, through negligence or ignorance, not amounting to bad faith, behave in a manner prejudicial to the administration of justice so as to bring the office into disrepute. The result is the same regardless of whether bad faith or negligence and ignorance are involved and warrants sanctions." In re Anderson, 451 So.2d 232, 234 (Miss.1984).
¶ 17. After careful review of this record, we find that Judge Lewis' prior infractions for ex parte communications is a pattern of misconduct. When coupled with his failure to pay previous court costs and submit to a public reprimand as ordered by this Court, and his continuing disregard of the Canons such conduct clearly warrants his removal from office, an assessment of all costs of these proceedings, and assessment of costs of all previously assessed against him.
¶ 18. Since this Court is indeed the trier of fact and has sole power to impose sanctions, we find that Judge Lewis did also, in fact, engage in improper sexual advances with two of the three women who testified. The Commission did not consider the testimony of the third woman to be reliable and dismissed her complaint. We agree, and we will not consider the third woman's testimony. Even so, we find that the evidence contained in the record by Doe and Roe is unambiguous, and it establishes that the greater burden of clear and convincing evidence was undeniably met. Further, we agree that the circumstances pertaining to these women seems more than coincidental, and accordingly, we find Doe and Roe to be credible witnesses. As the Commission noted, we agree that it is more than mere coincidence that three different women, who are perfect strangers to each other, have made sexual misconduct allegations against the same individual which allegedly occurred on different occasions, during different times of the year, and even in- different years. Nevertheless, even though the Commission did not consider this evidence in reaching its decision, we have permissibly considered this evidence because the applicable standard of review is de novo.
¶ 19. Prior disciplinary proceedings and sanctions have had no effect on Judge Lewis. The purpose of such proceedings is to preserve the integrity of the judiciary and restore public confidence in the administration of justice. It is impossible to find that Judge Lewis has satisfied such high criteria concerning his situation. This Court has examined the mitigating factors to be considered in determining discipline as set forth in Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Gibson, 883 So.2d 1155, 1158 (Miss.2004) (modifying In re Baker, 535 So.2d 47, 54 (Miss.1988)). Upon examining these factors, we find the following: (1) Judge Lewis' service length and character is in excess of eight years at the time of this filing and his prior disciplinary record is set out heretofore; (2) This record is silent to any positive contributions made by Judge Lewis to the courts and the community; (3) As to lack of prior judicial precedent on the incident in issue, here, there is more than ample judicial precedent directly on point, including precedent involving Judge Lewis himself; (4) The record contains no information regarding any commitment to fairness and innovative procedural reform by Judge Lewis; (5) Judge Lewis' willful disregard for a prior privaté admonishment and two public reprimands, failure to pay the costs associated therewith, or to be reprimanded in open court as required by this Court illustrates the magnitude of the offense and indifference to litigants and this Court in continuing to engage in ex parte com munications with litigants; (6) Although it is almost impossible to ascertain the number of persons affected by his conduct, we do know that at least two female complainants and witnesses were affected; (7) The facts and circumstances of this case more than adequately support a finding of moral turpitude. Id. at 1158.
¶20. When the facts of the case and law dictate, this Court has a duty and responsibility to remove a judge. Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Willard, 788 So.2d 736 (Miss.2001); Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Spencer, 725 So.2d 171 (Miss.1998); Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Jenkins, 725 So.2d 162 (Miss.1998); Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Dodds, 680 So.2d 180 (Miss.1996); Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Milling, 651 So.2d 531 (Miss.1995). Finally, this Court has stated that "[jjudges are called upon to exemplify the highest standards of conduct in a variety of situations and have a duty to conduct themselves with respect for those they serve, including the court staff and the litigants that come before them." Willard, 788 So.2d at 746 (citing Spencer, 725 So.2d at 178).
CONCLUSION
¶ 21. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court removes Joseph Lewis from office as Hinds County Justice Court Judge, District Three, and directs that Lewis shall pay the costs of this proceeding in the amount of $2,080.23, and all prior costs of the other proceedings.
¶ 22. The Clerk of this Court is directed to mail a copy of this opinion to the Hinds County Board of Supervisors and the Clerks of the Hinds County Chancery, Circuit and Justice Courts.
¶ 23. JUSTICE COURT JUDGE JOSEPH LEWIS, DISTRICT 3, HINDS COUNTY, IS HEREBY REMOVED FROM OFFICE, SHALL PAY THE COSTS OF THIS PROCEEDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,080.23, AND PAY ALL PRIOR COSTS.
. COBB, P.J., CARLSON, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ., CONCUR. GRAVES, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY WALLER, P.J., AND . EASLEY, J. DIAZ, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.