Court Opinion

ID: 9699442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:24:15.868817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:50.360514
License: Public Domain

Opinion by

Richard P. Gilbert, Chairman.

I concur with the factual recitations as set forth by the majority.
Judge Welch failed to disclose to the Administrative Office of the Courts the income received from his auctioneering endeavors, a fact which he admitted under oath.
An examination of the financial disclosures filed by Judge Welch will demonstrate that he has answered the question relative to income in the negative on each of the disclosures, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, made by him. In verifying Judge Welch’s admission against interest of non-disclosure it became apparent that he failed to disclose any other income including employment by General Motors as well as the income received from his employment with the Maryland Department of Agriculture as a Weed Control Officer.
I am unable to agree with the majority that Judge Welch’s conduct calls for only censure. Under the circumstances of this case, the judge’s failure to report the income from auctioneering, in my view, leads to a clear inference that he knew that he should not have participated in the sale of assets of estates then pending in the very court of which he was and is a judge and exacerbates the offense.
His persistent failure to disclose any income save that of his nominal judicial salary accentuates his seemingly utter insensitivity to the nature of the office to which he has been elected.
*75I believe Judge Welch’s violation of Canons IV and XXIV, coupled with his admitted violation of Judicial Ethics Rule 8, considered in the light of the disclosure reports themselves, requires the judge’s removal from office.
Accordingly, I recommend that Judge Welch be removed from office.