Court Opinion

ID: 6779449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-21 00:54:17.995364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:02:50.837290
License: Public Domain

Pfeifer, J.,
dissenting. Language is a wonderful and powerful part of our lives. It can make us cry; it can bring us great joy. Language and context are inextricably intertwined. When they are at odds, the result can be destructive. The choice of words, the audience, and the time and place we say something all affect the impact of language.
The context of the language used in this case is especially complex. This case has to be judged before the backdrop of the natural , tension between our rich *655history of free speech under the First Amendment and the limitations to judicial speech contained in Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 2 requires judges to act in a manner that “promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Canon 2, in its general terms, addresses the issue of context in judicial speech by requiring appropriateness.
Canon 2 was never meant to stifle judges — it recognizes that a judge need not sit silent in order to show his or her respect for the law and promote public confidence in the judiciary. Canon 2(A) encourages judges to speak about the law and the legal system and consult with other governmental bodies about the administration of justice. Sometimes a judge’s commentary must necessarily be tough.
On the other hand, Canon 2 recognizes that judges are not ordinary citizens, and that the words they say reflect on the entire institution, an institution that owes its life to public confidence. An erosion of that confidence affects everyone. Thus, while every citizen has the right to stand up and speak out, even irresponsibly, a judge is limited to speaking out responsibly. That limitation should hardly be thought of as a muzzle.
Judge Ferreri’s choice of words and the context in which he spoke them went beyond tough commentary. Judge Ferreri is not being sanctioned for the fact that he spoke out, but instead because of the manner in which he did it. He employed false and purposely incendiary comments. Off the record or not, some of his comments were made on camera.
There is a difference in degree to what this judge said, a difference that makes a sanction appropriate in this case. The majority opinion recognizes the necessary vibrancy of the judiciary, but also recognizes that judges must act responsibly. Respondent in this case did not, and I agree with the majority in that. Respondent’s genuine concern and passion for the juvenile court system is laudable; his judicial temperament in this case was unacceptable.
I dissent only from the sanction the majority imposes. I would have followed the recommendation of the panel: an eighteen-month suspension with the entire suspension stayed in favor of probation under the monitoring of a judge, with conditions.