Opinion ID: 852383
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The charges against Judge Hawkins relating to conduct before the Commission's inquiry.

Text: The Commission alleged the following counts of misconduct relating to this period:  Count I: Judge Hawkins permitted delays in PCR cases, violating Canon 3C(3) and committing conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.  Count II: Judge Hawkins permitted Commissioner Broyles to issue purportedly final orders, violating Canon 3B(2) and committing conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.  Count III: Judge Hawkins permitted an environment in which the Buntin file was lost, violating Canons 2A and 3C(2), and committing conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.  Count IV: Judge Hawkins permitted an environment in which Buntin's letters to the Court were lost, violating Canons 2A and 3C(2), and committing conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. When Judge Hawkins took over Court 5, he inherited and continued the unlawful practice of permitting a commissioner to enter final PCR orders. Although both he and Commissioner Broyles participated in this improper procedure, it was ultimately Judge Hawkins' responsibility to ensure that Court 5 operated in compliance with the law. Review of final orders by the presiding judge is not a mere technicality. If Judge Hawkins had complied with these statutory provisions, he could have discovered and addressed the delays in Commissioner Broyles' rulings. As a judge with supervisory authority over Commissioner Broyles, Judge Hawkins violated his duty to take reasonable measures to assure the prompt disposition of matters before judicial officers he supervised and thus bears ultimate responsibility for Commissioner Broyles' delays. The Masters found that Judge Hawkins had little to no organization regarding PCR case files (and other case files) in his office. The PCR case files were maintained from time to time at Commissioner Broyles' home, in her office, in a closet that Court 15 lent to Court 5 for storage, on one of several file shelves in the office, or under Talley's desk (where it was kept after its discovery on March 6, 2007). Judge Hawkins was never able to explain what happened to the letters Buntin sent to Court 5. The Masters found it likely they ended up in Court 5's Can't Find File file, from whence they apparently thereafter disappeared. Whether or not that is what happened to the letters, the fact that Court 5 maintained such a file in the first place, in which items might remain for months or even years, should have alerted Judge Hawkins to a serious problem in need of immediate attention. As the presiding judge in Court 5, Judge Hawkins bore ultimate responsibility for failing to institute a system that ensured files under his control could be located and documents would not be lost. The Court agrees with the Masters' conclusion that the Commission proved the allegations in Counts I through IV by clear and convincing evidence and that Judge Hawkins' conduct violated Canons 2A, 3B(9), 3B(2), 3C(2), and 3C(3), of the Code of Judicial Conduct and constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.