Opinion ID: 2541697
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Promptness of Probable Cause Hearing

Text: Judge Simes further contends that the Commission did not provide him with a prompt probable cause hearing, where he received notice of the action on March 27, 2006, and the probable cause hearing was not held until March 21, 2008. The Commission, in turn, urges that any delay in the holding of the probable cause hearing was due to Judge Simes's failure to file an answer to the complaint until March 13, 2008. [6] The 2006 rules clearly contemplate a prompt probable cause hearing. According to the Procedures, if, after the initial investigation and evaluation, it appears there is sufficient cause to proceed, a sworn complaint [7] shall be obtained from the complainant or a clear statement of allegations against the judge shall be prepared by the director of the Commission. See Ark. Jud. Discipline & Disability Comm'n R. 8(E). Then, the sworn complaint or statement of allegations shall immediately be served upon the judge. See Ark. Jud. Discipline & Disability Comm'n R. 8(G). Within twenty days after service of the sworn complaint or statement of allegations, the judge shall file a written answer or may personally appear. See Ark. Jud. Discipline & Disability Comm'n R. 8(H). Upon receipt and review of that answer, the Commission may terminate the proceeding and dismiss the complaint, giving notice to the judge and complainant. See Ark. Jud. Discipline & Disability Comm'n R. 8(I). The Commission also has the right to amend the allegations, prior to a finding of probable cause, provided that notice and an opportunity to respond within ten days is given to the judge. See Ark. Jud. Discipline & Disability Comm'n R. 8(J). It then shall promptly schedule and hold a formal meeting, termed a probable cause determination. Ark. Jud. Discipline & Disability Comm'n R. 9(C). While the Commission urges that the delay was Judge Simes's, that was not the case. Here, Mr. Higgins's complaint was received by the Commission on March 20, 2006, and notice of it was provided to Judge Simes on March 27, 2006. On May 11, 2006, the Commission again notified Judge Simes of the complaint against him. However, the record reveals that it was not until January 30, 2008, that the Commission provided its statement of allegations against Judge Simes to him. Pursuant to the rules, it was not until after the statement of allegations was served upon Judge Simes that he was required to answer. [8] Based on the record before this court, it certainly appears to me that any delay in conducting the probable-cause hearing was of the Commission's making, as it did not serve the statement of allegations on Judge Simes until some twenty-two months after its receipt of the initial complaint by Mr. Higgins. That being said, it is clear to me that this lapse did not violate Judge Simes's procedural due-process rights. Again, procedural due process requires that a judge be given notice of the proceedings, that the judge be given an opportunity to be heard, and that the proceedings against the judge be essentially fair. See Graziano, supra . As already set forth above, those requirements were met in the instant case, and Judge Simes's procedural due-process rights were not violated by the delay in his probable-cause hearing. For these reasons, I concur with the majority that Judge Simes's due-process rights were not violated. IV. Recommendation I turn, then, to the Commission's recommendation that Judge Simes's actions compel his removal from his position of circuit judge. It is evident from the record that Judge Simes's choices in handling the Chandler Estate matter while on the bench were not the most prudent professionally or were the choices that a majority of judges in his situation would have made. However, that is not our standard for determining disciplinary action. We have observed that [w]hether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree of discipline to be imposed, should be determined through a reasonable and reasoned application of the text [of the canons] and should depend on such factors as the seriousness of the transgression, whether there is a pattern of improper activity and the effect of the improper activity on others or on the judicial system. Thompson, 341 Ark. at 280, 16 S.W.3d at 227 (quoting Preamble, Ark.Code Jud. Conduct). As noted by the majority, we have further recognized certain factors to be considered in determining the appropriate sanction for judicial misconduct, including: (1) whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or evidenced a pattern of conduct; (2) the nature, extent, and frequence of occurrence of the acts of misconduct; (3) whether the misconduct occurred in or out of the courtroom; (4) whether the misconduct occurred in the judge's official capacity or in his private life; (5) whether the judge has acknowledged or recognized that the acts occurred; (6) whether the judge has evidenced an effort to change or modify his conduct; (7) the length of time of service on the bench; (8) whether there have been prior complaints about this judge; (9) the effect the misconduct has upon the integrity of and respect for the judiciary; and (10) the extent to which the judge exploited his position to satisfy his personal desires. See id. It is clear that Judge Simes's actions prior to assuming the bench were not the epitome of what one expects from an attorney. However, he was sanctioned by our Office of Professional Conduct for those lapses in judgment. That additional lapses of judgment took place after Judge Simes took office is also most evident and does require some sort of sanction. Like the majority, however, I cannot agree with the Commission's recommendation that Judge Simes's lapses in judgment are of the sort that require his removal from the bench. Certainly, Judge Simes's situation is one of which many lawyers who assume the bench should take note, but that, again, does not warrant removal in this case. While the Commission presented evidence of other sanctioned behavior by Judge Simes, it does not appear that he previously engaged in the actions that served as the basis of this case, nor does it appear that Judge Simes's actions greatly affected the judicial system. His misconduct took place outside of the courtroom, not in his capacity as a judge, and Judge Simes seems to acknowledge that the acts occurred. The acts in this case appear to have been isolated and do not appear to require any additional change or modification on Judge Simes's part, nor do I believe that Judge Simes exploited his position to satisfy his personal desires; instead, he was lackadaisical in exercising his professional judgment. While he has served as a judge for approximately twelve years, and he has had prior complaints filed against him for which he has already been sanctioned, the instant allegations, after examining all of the factors in determining the appropriate sanction, simply do not require Judge Simes's removal. While the majority agrees, it has suspended Judge Simes until the next election for his particular judicial seat. It has further precluded him from the practice of law during his suspension. For all intents and purposes, then, it has removed him, which I believe to be extremely harsh. [9] Such a sanction, in my opinion, should be reserved for intentional conduct that is harmful to the integrity of the judiciary, not negligent lapses in judgment. As the majority acknowledges, Judge Simes's misconduct is in no way as egregious as that in Thompson. Accordingly, taking a reasonable and reasoned application of the text of the canons; looking at the seriousness of the transgression, whether there was a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the improper activity on others or on the judicial system; and examining the factors set forth above, as I must under our case law, it is my opinion that Judge Simes violated only Canon 2 and should be suspended for ninety days without pay. For all of the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent in part and concur in part.