Opinion ID: 1862573
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hearing Panel and ADB Decisions

Text: In its initial decision, the hearing panel reprimanded respondent for the misconduct. It explained: [T]he panel is also persuaded that, while in all instances, ex-parte communication must be avoided, that in this instance respondent should be reprimanded only, for the following reasons. First, testimony indicates (and it is not rebutted) that the memorandum submitted to Judge Bronson discussed the two cases that had been presented on the oral record.... Respondent testified that he brought new, pertinent Supreme Court cases to the panel's attention at oral argument and presumably in the presence of opposing counsel. Further, the memorandum could not have had an impact on Judges Gribbs and Clements since they had not seen the memorandum and they had taken positions on the case before the memorandum was delivered to Judge Bronson. The panel is also troubled by the remoteness of the incident complained of by the Grievance Administrator and the dearth of hard evidence, i.e. a transcript to implicate respondent. The panel comes to its conclusion of ex-parte communication by virtue of circumstantial evidence. Still, the panel believed that ex-parte communication is not a trivial matter and though no new information was imparted to Judge Bronson, such an occurrence is harmful to the integrity of the judicial process. The panel, in imposing a reprimand, also considered respondent's previously unblemished record over a long and distinguished career.