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

Heading: Service as a Fiduciary

Text: Judge Simes also claims that the Commission clearly erred in finding that he served as a fiduciary to the Chandler Estate while he was a judge. The Commission's specific findings on this point were:  Judge Simes was appointed as the administrator of the Chandler Estate on January 14, 1976, and served as administrator of that estate until discharged by Order of the Circuit Court of Phillips County, Arkansas, dated the 20th day of May, 2004.  Judge Simes took no steps to have himself removed as the administrator of the Chandler Estate upon assuming the position of Circuit Judge.  Judge Bell ordered Judge Simes to file a final accounting of the estate in 2004, which he did not do.  After he assumed the bench, Judge Simes claimed the estate owed him money for administrator's fees.  Judge Simes served as the administrator of an estate of a decedent not a member of the Judge's family during the time that he was serving as a Circuit Judge.  The conduct of Judge Simes violates Canon Four E restricting a judge from serving in a fiduciary capacity. Judge Simes's rebuttal to the Commission's findings on this point is essentially the same as he made with respect to Canon 4(G) regarding the practice of law. He maintains that he could not take steps to be removed as administrator of the estate without practicing law in violation of Canon 4(G). He also contends that the Commission's finding that he served in a fiduciary capacity is supported only by evidence that he failed to perform any duties he may have owed the estate as a fiduciary. As with the Canon 4(G) issue, Judge Simes's argument and the arguments of the dissent are unpersuasive on this point. The fact that he was negligent or inadequate in performing his duties as administrator of the estate does not change the fact that he continued to be the court-ordered administrator of the Chandler Estate after he became a circuit judge. Also, as already mentioned, he received rent payments, filed them away, and then requested fees as the administrator after he took the bench. The Commission's findings on this point are not clearly erroneous. The dissent argues that Judge Simes, after assuming the bench, was only imprudent and unprofessional when he received the Chandler Estate rental checks and filed them away without distribution. The dissent further advocates that Judge Simes's actions were merely negligent acts and did not constitute a service to the estate as either lawyer or administrator. We disagree. The acts of receiving multiple rental checks on behalf of the estate while on the bench and then filing them in some fashion were actions taken in Judge Simes's dual roles as attorney and fiduciary. His imperfect subsequent performance with regard to the checks cannot operate as a defense to his initial receipt and filing of the checks. Nor can we agree that Judge Simes did not appreciate the fact that he was acting as both lawyer and administrator for the estate. Judge Simes manifestly recognized that he was acting in both roles when he petitioned Judge Arnold for fees for acts done in both capacities.