Opinion ID: 877940
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: before the judicial standards commission of the state of montana

Text: INQUIRY CONCERNING JUSTICE ) Notice of Partial ) Dismissal, Complaint and DANIEL J. SHEA ) Notice of Institution of ) Further Proceedings TO: Justice Daniel J. Shea Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Montana You Are Hereby Notified that preliminary investigation has been completed concerning the charges made against you by the Judicial Standards Commission by that certain document entitled `Notice of Preliminary Investigation', dated August 24, 1978. As a result of that investigation the Commission finds: 1. The allegation that you willfully and persistently failed to perform your share of the work load is not supported by the current records of the Supreme Court. 2. That the allegation that you used your position as a Justice of the Supreme Court to intimidate some of your creditors is not supported by any evidence. 3. That good cause exists to institute further proceedings to determine if you have acted contrary to Canons 4 and 19 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, resulting in `conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrespect.' (Rule 9 of the Rules of the Judicial Standards Commission.) Now, Therefore, It Is Hereby Ordered that the allegations referred to in paragraphs numbered (1) and (2), above, be dismissed and that further proceedings be instituted concerning the remaining charges contained in the `Notice of Preliminary Investigation.' The specific grounds for the charges still pending are as follows: Canon 4 provides: ` Avoidance of Impropriety. A judge's official conduct should be free from impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; he should avoid infractions of law; and his personal behavior, not only upon the Bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach.' Canon 19 provides in part: `Judicial Opinions. It is of high importance that judges constituting a court of last resort should use effort and self-restraint to promote solidarity of conclusion and the consequent influence of judicial decision. A judge should not yield to pride of opinion or value more highly his individual reputation than that of the court to which he should be loyal. Except in case of conscientious difference of opinion on fundamental principle, dissenting opinions should be discouraged in courts of last resort.' The circumstances reported to the Commission and which may constitute a violation of the aforesaid judicial canons, bringing the judicial office into disrespect, are as follows: