Opinion ID: 1349774
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standards for review and discipline

Text: Article VII (Amended), section 8(1)(e), of the Oregon Constitution, provides in part: (1) In the manner provided by law, and notwithstanding section 1 of this Article, a judge of any court may be removed or suspended from his judicial office by the Supreme Court, or censured by the Supreme Court, for:      (e) Wilful violation of any rule of judicial conduct as shall be established by the Supreme Court   [.] Consistent with this constitutional recognition of its authority, the Supreme Court has adopted the Code. See In re Fadeley, 310 Or. 548, 560-61, 802 P.2d 31 (1990) (holding that the constitutional provision carried with it the acknowledgement of preexisting rules regulating judicial conduct). The canons of the Code at issue in this case were in effect at all material times. This court reviews de novo the Commission's findings, conclusions, and recommendation. ORS 1.430(1); In the Matter of Field, 281 Or. 623, 627-28, 576 P.2d 348 (1978). In order to conclude that there had been a wilful violation of a rule of judicial conduct established by this court, we must find clear and convincing evidence of a wilful violation. See In re Gustafson, 305 Or. 655, 668, 756 P.2d 21 (1988) (applying that standard); In the Matter of Field, supra, 281 Or. at 629, 576 P.2d 348 (same). In In re Gustafson, supra, 305 Or. at 660, 756 P.2d 21, this court held: [A] judge's conduct is `wilful' within the meaning of Article VII (Amended), section 8, if the judge intends to cause a result or take an action contrary to the applicable rule and if he is aware of circumstances that in fact make the rule applicable, whether or not the judge knows that he violates the rule. The intent required is simply an intentional act, defined as an act done with the conscious objective of causing the result or of acting in the manner defined in the rule of conduct. Id.