Opinion ID: 1656572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disrepute of judicial office

Text: ¶ 40. Pursuant to the Mississippi Constitution, the Court may remove from office, suspend, fine or publicly censure or reprimand any justice or judge of this state for ... conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute. Miss. Const. art. 6, § 177A. As the Court has stated, the conduct need not be in bad faith  rather, it may be the result of negligence or ignorance. Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Justice Court Judge S.S., 834 So.2d 31, 34-35 (Miss.2003). That is, the Court has held: While the conduct of Respondent, in our opinion, amounted to willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, bringing the judicial office into disrepute, we recognize ... that a judge may also, through negligence or ignorance not amounting to bad faith, behave in a manner prejudicial to the administration of justice so as to bring the judicial office into disrepute. The result is the same regardless of whether bad faith or negligence and ignorance are involved and warrants sanctions. Id. (quoting Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Boykin, 763 So.2d 872, 875 (Miss.2000)) (internal citations omitted). ¶ 41. The Commission argues that Judge Osborne's conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice and that it brings the judicial office into disrepute. Judge Osborne argues generally that he was ethically required to conclude the matters for which his legal services had been retained. ¶ 42. I would find that Judge Osborne clearly committed conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice, thereby bringing the judicial office into disrepute. The Legislature has determined that a sitting county court judge shall refrain from practicing law, except to the extent he is concluding his practice within six months of assuming the bench. Judge Osborne repeatedly violated this prohibition, filing new lawsuits and actions after he took office. Such actions most certainly bring the judicial office into disrepute because they create the appearance of impropriety.