Court Opinion

ID: 9760326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:48:09.598311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:10.896863
License: Public Domain

Hill, J.,
concurring. I concur with the result reached by the majority of my brothers. It seems fitting that my reasons for this decision be placed upon the record.
I recognize that in the course of a proceeding the irritations and frustrations experienced by court and counsel may erupt in some unpredictable manner. In those instances, however, the burden is on the court to exercise that quality of fairness and evenhandedness which the citizens of this state expect of their judiciary. While some deviation from this standard may be overlooked, the actions of Judge Fienberg in this case cannot be condoned.
Plowever, the report and recommendation of the Judicial Responsibility Board was filed with this Court in January of this year. Judge Fienberg had been retired by operation of law on December 31 last. It is my belief that any action we *512might take pursuant to the recommendation from the Board has, for that reason, been foreclosed. Having retired, Judge Fienberg is no longer subject to being disciplined as a judge. In re DeLucia, 76 N.J. 329, 336, 387 A.2d 362, 366 (1978) (“Having resigned, respondent is no longer subject to being disciplined as a judge . . . .”). Since the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to recommending action upon a member of the bench, we no longer are able to adopt that body’s suggestion. I therefore must regretfully reject the recommendation of the Board.
The dissent, while ignoring the legal and jurisdictional principles involved in this issue, also speaks righteously of “influences not of record” as a reason for our decision today. Such vague innuendo does nothing constructive to resolve the problem at hand, especially since Mr. Justice Billings refuses to divulge what strange conspiratorial forces he perceives lurking in the corners of our decision.