Opinion ID: 2276843
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: The egregious error method of committing sanctionable judicial misconduct.

Text: We agree with Judge Gormley that SCR 4.020(2) prevents a judge from being sanctioned for committing a good faith legal error. Something more than committing a good faith legal error is obviously required before a judicial officer may be properly disciplined. [25] But Courts have sometimes struggled to define precisely what that something more must be and have used various formulas to attempt to explain what differentiates a good faith legal error from sanctionable misconduct. [26] Perhaps what constitutes misconduct would be apparent to the members of this Court and the Commission. But we agree with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court's observation that [w]hile it may always be possible for this or any court to determine on an `I know it when I see it' basis whether judicial conduct violates [the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct], that approach is plainly unsatisfactory. [27] Judge Gormley contends that the Commission erred by finding her guilty of misconduct without having found that she engaged in a pattern of misconduct or acted in bad faith. She also takes issue with our purported failure in our original opinion in this matter to set forth clearly when a judicial officer may be subjected to sanctions. So, for the benefit of the bench, bar, and citizens of the Commonwealth, we shall expressly set forth when a judicial officer may be properly sanctioned for legal error. As previously discussed, a judicial officer may be properly sanctioned for acting in bad faith or having engaged in a pattern of misconduct. [28] Because the bad faith and pattern of misconduct methods of committing sanctionable misconduct do not sufficiently address all improper conduct that crosses the line into being sanctionable judicial misconduct, we now join the Commission in expressly adopting the rationale of our sister court in Louisiana that a judge may be disciplined for a legal ruling or action made contrary to clear and determined law about which there is no confusion or question as to its interpretation.. . . [29] Accordingly, a judicial officer may be sanctioned if the judge committed at least one serious, obvious, egregious legal error that is clearly contrary to settled law. Judge Gormley argued on rehearing of our original opinion that we had essentially de facto adopted a new egregious error standard without openly so stating and without affording her an adequate opportunity to defend herself under that new standard. But our express adoption on rehearing of the Louisiana court's egregious error standard causes Judge Gormley to suffer no prejudice because we affirm the Commission's conclusions that Judge Gormley acted in bad faith and engaged in a pattern of misconduct, both of which were already established methods of committing sanctionable judicial misconduct. Although we believe Judge Gormley's actions fall precisely within it, our adoption today of the egregious error standard utilized in Louisiana courts does not really affect the outcome of Judge Gormley's cases. We address whether Judge Gormley's actions fall within the egregious error standard only as an illustrative guide for future cases.