Opinion ID: 2467000
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the commission's recommended discipline

Text: The Commission's Conclusions of Law 1 and 2 read as follows: 1. Judge Voorhees clearly believed that the acts of Judges Gerhard, O'Toole, and Quillin in removing their name plates from their courtroom doors, the act of Judge Gerhard in posting a sign referring persons reading the sign to the judges of the reorganization committee, and Judge Goeke's distribution of the pills were acts of judicial misconduct. 2. Having such a belief, Judge Voorhees had a duty, by reason of Rule 2, Canon 3B(3) to report such conduct to the Commission of Retirement, Removal and Discipline. Judge Voorhees breached such duty by not reporting such conduct and, by not so doing, violated Rule 2, Canon 3B(3). Judge Voorhees' explanation that he did not report such conduct because he believed it would cause further problems is not an acceptable excuse. On the basis of these conclusions it issued the following recommendation: The commission recommends that Judge Voorhees be reprimanded for failure to report to the commission what he clearly believed to be judicial misconduct on the part of Judges Gerhard, Goeke, O'Toole and Quillin. One problem is that no word, phrase or line of the Notice relates to the transactions described in these conclusions. The Notice spoke only of the relief order and the guidelines. We would be justified in pretermitting consideration of Conclusions 1 and 2 because they are outside the charge. They do not show willful and continual refusal, so as to bring Guideline 6 into consideration. The doctrine of amendment to conform to the proof should be applied to disciplinary proceedings with great caution. Any amendment must be disclosed to the respondent before submission to the Committee. See In re Briggs, 595 S.W.2d 270 (Mo. banc 1980). In this instance also, however, we elect to rule the matter on its merits, because we conclude that the record does not support a finding of misconduct on the part of the respondent in failing to report the incidents relating to the removal of signs, the posted notice, or the pills. Canon 3(B)(3) serves the salutary purpose of inhibiting coverups. It imposes on judges the duty of reporting to the Commission about matters which come to their attention and about which the Commission is previously uninformed. Without this canon, a judge might be tempted to avoid rocking the boat, even though he or she has particularized knowledge of wrongdoing by a colleague or by a lawyer. The canon clearly informs as to where duty lies. We are unable to say, however, that every failure to inform about well-publicized misbehavior of a fellow judge may properly be branded misconduct. The canons must be given a reasonable construction. The Commission concludes that the respondent clearly believed that the described actions of the associates were acts of judicial misconduct. This conclusion flies in the face of the respondent's testimony, as follows: Q. Did you report any of these judges at the time to the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline? A. No, sir. Q. Why not? A. These problems or at least the handling of them at that time were not disciplinary. They were not for punishment, they were to upgrade our courts. They were actions that we felt were necessary so that our courts could function so that our dockets could function. I wasn't even convinced in my mind then or at any other time and I'mas to whether these actions were violations of the canons on their part.... Tr. Vol. III, Part II at 232. Nothing in the record shows that the respondent clearly believed that the associate judges' actions constituted misconduct such as to subject them to discipline. The Commission cannot convert something he said into something he simply did not say, under the guise of assessing credibility. Most of the incidents were matters of public knowledge, beginning with an article in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat dated February 4, 1986, which reported about the sign incidents. There was extensive newspaper coverage after February 27. There is a question whether a judge may be criticized for not making a report when full information is readily available. The pills incident was not contemporaneously reported in the newspapers, insofar as the record shows, but there is no evidence that it interfered with the administration of the court or caused problems for the presiding judge. Not every incident of puerile or boorish behavior is a ground for judicial discipline. The preparation and distribution of the pills, coarse as it was, arguably represents the exercise of a First Amendment right. [11] The respondent cannot be faulted for not reporting this incident. The record shows, furthermore, that two circuit judges filed separate complaints with the Commission on March 19, 1986, to which were appended copies of the transcript of the meeting of February 21, 1986 between the reorganization committee and the unit managers. (See Footnote 7). No delict on the part of the respondent impeded or delayed the Commission in any respect. He could have added little to the transcript, in which the matters the Commission referred to in the charges were fully documented. The Commission was seasonably and fully informed. The only basis for discipline asserted by the Commission is not supported by the record.