Opinion ID: 2495598
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Joint Stipulations

Text: A hearing officer was appointed to conduct proceedings pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XXIII, § 29; however, prior to a hearing, the parties entered into an extensive stipulation of facts and a partial stipulation of ethical rules violated. [5] The parties also offered a proposed joint stipulation that Judge Badeaux would be censured if his case were eventually referred to this court. [6] The Commission agreed to dispense with convening a hearing and to accept the stipulated facts and law. The Commission invited Judge Badeaux to appear before the members, which occurred on December 3, 2010. During his appearance, Judge Badeaux expressed remorse for not self-recusing immediately upon being assigned the Sinclair case. He explained that he did not recuse because he believed his close, personal relationship with the Sinclairs afforded him a unique opportunity to be of assistance to them in resolving any of the issues they might have. Judge Badeaux also viewed the matter as amicable because the Sinclairs were getting along well and sharing custody with no difficulties whatsoever. Further, Judge Badeaux acknowledged his error in signing the ex parte order of physical custody in favor of Mr. Sinclair, stating that was a bad judgment made only in haste, with no malice towards anyone and only towards what I thought was in the best interest of the minor child. [7] Judge Badeaux assured the Commissioners that a similar situation will not recur in the future: . . . Not a day goes by that I don't contemplate the harm I've caused to Mrs. Sinclair and Mr. Sinclair, the loss of our friendship. I've learned from it. I hope it will make me a better judge. Certainly [I am] much more sensitive to issues of recusal. . . . I would like to assure the Members of the Commission that that mistake will never happen again. If presented with a similar scenario, I will recuse myself from the beginning. Following the December proceedings, the Commission filed its recommendation in this court on January 28, 2011.