Title: Matter of Santini
Citation: 126 N.J. 291, 597 A.2d 1388
Docket Number: N/A
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: November 1, 1991

126 N.J. 291 (1991) 597 A.2d 1388 IN THE MATTER OF JUDGE DOMINICK C. SANTINI, JUDGE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURTS OF KNOWLTON TOWNSHIP AND ALPHA BOROUGH, WARREN COUNTY. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued September 10, 1991. Decided November 1, 1991. *292 Patrick J. Monahan, Jr., Counsel, argued the cause for Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct. Abbott S. Brown argued the cause for respondent (Brown, Gold &amp; Beck, attorneys). PER CURIAM. This proceeding against respondent, Dominick C. Santini, a municipal court judge, arises out of a complaint filed with the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC). The ACJC found that respondent had intervened on behalf of a private *293 client in a matter pending before another municipal court. Based on our independent review of the record, we concur in the ACJC's determinations that respondent violated the standards of judicial conduct. Respondent's prior record, both as a municipal court judge and as an attorney, is unblemished. He recognizes his error and requests that the reprimand be private. Because of the nature of the violation and its effect on the public interest, however, we conclude that the reprimand must be public. As found by the ACJC, the relevant facts are: Based on its findings, the ACJC concluded that Finding that respondent's actions violated Rule 1:15-1(b) and Canons 1, 2, and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the ACJC recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded. We agree. Rule 1:15-1(b) limits the practice of attorneys serving as municipal court judges by requiring that "[a]n attorney who is a judge or acting judge of a municipal court * * * not practice in any criminal, quasi-criminal or penal matter, whether judicial or administrative in nature * * *." We summarized the meaning of the relevant canons in In re Murray, 92 N.J. 567, 570, 458 A.2d 116 (1983): Respondent's intervention with three public officials on behalf of his client contravenes both the Code and the Rule. At the outset, respondent was sensitive to the limitation that his judicial office imposed on his ability to represent his client. He told Whitehead that he could not represent him. If respondent had stood firm, he would not be before us. Unfortunately, he became ensnared in the process of trying to obtain another attorney. That process went awry because of the inability of the two attorneys, due to other commitments, to communicate directly with each other. From time to time, the clients of attorneys who serve as municipal court judges will be defendants in proceedings before other municipal courts. When that situation occurs, the judge understandably may try to find another attorney to represent the client. Municipal judges must remember, however, that their desire to serve their clients must yield to the restrictions of their judicial office. The judge who cannot obtain other counsel should so advise the client. The client must then obtain other counsel, seek an adjournment, or take other appropriate action. Under no condition may the municipal court judge communicate with the judge or clerk of the court in which the proceeding is pending. Once respondent failed to reach the other attorney, he continued to represent Whitehead by making additional telephone calls. Respondent now recognizes the impropriety of those calls. His misconduct led a zoning officer, a municipal court clerk, and another municipal court judge to believe that respondent was somehow involved or interested in the Whitehead case. Consequently, respondent's misconduct conveyed the impression that respondent was in a special position of *297 influence and lent the prestige of his position to advance the private interests of his client. Respondent disputes the finding that his call to the court clerk immediately after the April 25th court session "was an attempt to intimidate [her]." He asserts that acting on mistaken information that Whitehead was in jail, he "panicked" over his client's well-being. Information that a client has been incarcerated could understandably generate feelings of panic in an attorney. Judges, however, should be made of sterner stuff. As Justice Douglas observed, "[j]udges are supposed to be men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate." Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 376, 67 S. Ct. 1249, 1255, 91 L. Ed. 2d 1546, 1552 (1947). We need not go so far as to find that respondent's conduct was an attempt to intimidate the court clerk. Respondent was, as the court clerk recognized, "out of order because being a judge he shouldn't have been calling me." In recognizing that a municipal court judge when representing a client should not call the clerk or judge of another municipal court, we also recognize that an attorney can react strongly on learning that a client has been arrested. An arrest is a serious matter. Incarceration is even more dangerous. If Whitehead had been incarcerated, his incarceration might be an extenuating factor in assessing respondent's conduct. Perhaps this entire situation could have been avoided if the White Township Municipal Court had exercised more circumspection before ordering the arrest of a citizen for a non-appearance on a zoning violation that did not threaten the public health or safety. Rule 7:6-3, which governs non-appearances by residents of this State in motor vehicle violations, authorizes either the issuance of a warrant or the mailing of a written notice to the defendant. We are asking our Committee on Criminal Practice to consider the feasibility of amending Rule 3:3-1, which deals with non-indictable offenses cognizable in the municipal court, to include a similar provision for a written notice instead of the issuance of an arrest warrant. *298 Respondent's original concerns while under the mistaken impression that his client had been jailed do not justify his subsequent conduct. He learned soon after the first of his two telephone conversations with the court clerk on the evening of April 25 that Whitehead had been released. Nonetheless, respondent persisted in calling the clerk and the judge of the other municipal court. As this case demonstrates, the danger in making one telephone call on behalf of a client is that one call often leads to another. The best way to avoid the risk that such calls will be construed as an attempt at intimidation is by not making the first telephone call. In many respects this case is reminiscent of In re Murray, supra, 92 N.J. at 571, 458 A.2d 116, in which we stated: Respondent knew or should have known of the effect of his telephone calls on the three public officials. He knew or should have known that his actions violated Rule 1:15-1(b) and that they would erode the public's confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. *299 After a careful review of the entire record, we conclude that respondent's actions warrant a public reprimand. So ordered. For reprimandment Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN 7. Opposed None. The Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct having filed a presentment with the Court, recommending that JUDGE DOMINICK C. SANTINI be publicly reprimanded for violations of Rule 1:15-1(b), Rule 2:15-8(a)(6), and Canons 1, 2, and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and good cause appearing; It is ORDERED that DOMINICK C. SANTINI is hereby publicly reprimanded for violations of Rule 1:15-1(b) and Canons 1, 2, and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct; and it is further ORDERED that respondent shall reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs, including the costs of transcripts.