Court Opinion

ID: 9691062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:06:34.004742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:09.804293
License: Public Domain

Jim Hannah, Chief Justice, concurring. I concur in the majority’s analysis on the constitutionality of Canon 5C(2) and in the decision reached based on the issues presented in this case; however, I write separately to discuss the lack of clarity in procedure of the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission that would result in a reprimand or censure of a judge.1 I am concerned that the Commission’s use of the term “probable cause hearing” implies that a noticed formal hearing is being provided when that is not the case. The term “probable cause hearing” does not appear in Amendment 66.2 Nor does the term appear in the Rules of Procedure of the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission. Rule 9(C) discusses probable cause determination and mandates that this determination is to be made in a “formal meeting” of the Commission. However, Amendment 66 specifically requires notice and a formal hearing before any discipline is imposed, and the meeting provided for in Rule 9 does not constitute a noticed hearing as that concept is commonly understood in Anglo-American jurisprudence. It does not appear to me that under Amendment 66 the Commission is permitted to impose discipline at a meeting of the Commission. Amendment 66 plainly provides with respect to discipline, suspension, leave and removal, that while the Commission is to receive, initiate, and investigate complaints of judicial misconduct, and thus logically make a determination of probable cause to proceed, it is only after notice and a formal hearing that a judge may be reprimanded, censured, suspended or removed from office. The Commission under Amendment 66(c) may, after notice and a hearing, reprimand or censure a judge. The Commission may also, again after notice and a hearing, recommend to this court that a judge be suspended or removed. The rules are confused on this issue. They should be redrafted and made consistent with Amendment 66. They should mandate that any reprimand or censure [admonishment or informal adjustment] be undertaken only after a noticed formal hearing. Rule 11 currently provides for such a hearing before making a recommendation to this court to suspend or remove. The decision on lesser disciplinary actions by the Commission should be provided the same hearing. This is consistent with In re Rules 7 & 9, 302 Ark. App’x 633, 790 S.W.2d 143 (1990), where this court made reprimands and censures public.   While Amendment 66 authorizes the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission to “reprimand or censure” a judge, Rule 9(E) (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission authorizes the Commission to issue an “admonition” or make an “informal adjustment.” Pursuant to this same rule, admonition and informal adjustment mean that the Commission may “inform or admonish the judge, direct professional treatment, counseling, or assistance for the judge, or impose conditions on the judge’s future conduct.” Rule 9(E)(2). The disparity in terms and lack of clarity in Rule 9(E)(2) complicate the analysis.    Amendment 66 created the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission.