Opinion ID: 1988932
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Right of Special Counsel to Appeal

Text: Chapter II, section 30, of the Vermont Constitution vests in the Supreme Court disciplinary authority concerning all judicial officers in the state. See also Vt. Const. ch. II, § 36 (power to suspend judges). The Legislature has specifically authorized the Supreme Court to adopt and promulgate a code of judicial ethics and rules and regulations providing for the exercise of disciplinary control over judges. 4 V.S.A. § 3. The Judicial Conduct Board is established under the Rules of Supreme Court for Disciplinary Control of Judges, and the jurisdiction and powers of the Board flow from these Rules. See Rule 4 (establishment of the Judicial Conduct Board); Rule 3 (jurisdiction). In concluding that the Special Counsel has no standing to argue as a party opponent to the Board, we review the language of the Rules and review case law from other jurisdictions. Rule 11(1) provides: The Supreme Court shall review all final orders of recommendation of the Board. It may take any action or impose any sanction consistent with its constitutional and statutory authority. This Court, therefore, has a mandate, in broad terms, to analyze the findings and recommendations of the Board. Rule 11 also provides that the judge charged may appeal to the Supreme Court from the final order of recommendation of the Board. Rule 11(2). No other party is given authority to take an appeal from a Board recommendation. Our Rules make clear that Special Counsel is an agent or representative of the Board. Rule 1(3) defines Special Counsel as one or more attorneys appointed by the Board to gather and present evidence in proceedings before the Board or this Court. The Board may make independent investigations by its own members or by Special Counsel. See Rules 6(3)(b); 7(2). Special Counsel may be designated by the Board to present evidence in support of a formal complaint. See Rule 8(7). It is, of course the Board's complaint that Special Counsel is supporting. See Rule 8(1). In essence, the result of the proceeding is that the Board narrows its complaint to a limited number of violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct it finds are supported by the evidence. The role of Special Counsel is to present the Board's position to this Court. Nothing in the Rules allow the Board to contradict its own recommendations when its findings and conclusions are being reviewed by this Court and, in effect, argue for greater sanctions than it recommended in its final report. [4] It is axiomatic, therefore, that Special Counsel similarly lacks standing to attack the Board's conclusions and to argue that more violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct should be found and that greater sanctions are appropriate than those recommended by the Board. We therefore hold that Special Counsel does not have standing to appeal from the Board's final order of recommendation. In reaching this conclusion we note that this is the view of a number of other courts. In Spruance v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, 13 Cal.3d 778, 532 P.2d 1209, 119 Cal.Rptr. 841 (1975), the Supreme Court of California stated that: [E]xaminers appear before us merely as counsel to [the Commission]. As such, the examiners are no more free than the Commission itself to argue against the validity of [the Commission's] own adjudication of the facts and consequent conclusions of law.... [T]he Commission is estopped from urging us, through counsel, to assess the record otherwise. Id. at 785 n. 5, 532 P.2d at 1213 n. 5, 119 Cal.Rptr. at 845 n. 5. This rule was specifically adopted in In re Buford, 577 S.W.2d 809, 819-20 (Mo.1979); In re Mikesell, 396 Mich. 517, 526-27, 243 N.W.2d 86, 90 (1976). The holding in Spruance was based upon the language of the California Constitution, which states that [o]n recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Performance the Supreme Court may ... censure or remove a judge. Cal. Const., art. VI, § 18(c). Although neither our Constitution nor our statute limits this Court's review in such terms, we have adopted similar constraints in our rules. Thus, Rule 11(1) provides that our role is to review all final orders of recommendation of the Board. In this context, the failure of the Rules to provide for appeals by the Board or its Special Counsel was intentional. Since our responsibility is to review the recommendations of the Board, it would be inappropriate for the Board or its representative to appeal its own recommendations. Because we find that Special Counsel may not appeal from the Board's determination, we will review only the findings and recommendations of the Board as appealed by Justice Hill and will not specifically address the issues raised by Special Counsel that attack the conclusions of the Board. Before we turn to the Board's recommendations, however, we must determine the proper scope of review to apply to the recommendations.