No. 27333: R595-4. Sanctions

DAR File No.: 27333
Filed: 11/16/2004, 02:15
Received by: NL

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

The purpose of this change in proposed rule is to amend the original proposed new rule based on public comments received.

 

Summary of the rule or change:

This change makes nonsubstantive grammatical changes to the text of the rule and amends the list of criteria used by Judicial Conduct Commission to determine an appropriate sanction. (DAR NOTE: This change in proposed rule has been filed to make additional changes to a proposed new rule that was published in the September 1, 2004, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 26. Underlining in the rule below indicates text that has been added since the publication of the proposed rule mentioned above; strike-out indicates text that has been deleted. You must view the change in proposed rule and the proposed new rule together to understand all of the changes that will be enforceable should the agency make this rule effective.)

 

State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:

Art. VIII, Sec 13; and Sections 78-8-101 through 78-1-108

 

Anticipated cost or savings to:

the state budget:

None---These revisions do not alter the basic operations or functions of the Judicial Conduct Commission, and therefore, do not result in either costs or savings to the State.

 

local governments:

None--The Judicial Conduct Commission operations do not affect local governments, therefore, there are no costs or savings.

 

other persons:

None--These revisions do not alter the basic operations or functions of the Judicial Conduct Commission, and therefore, do not result in either costs or savings to other persons.

 

Compliance costs for affected persons:

None--These revisions do not alter the basic operations or functions of the Judicial Conduct Commission, and therefore, do not result in either compliance costs or compliance savings to affected persons.

 

Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:

None--The Judicial Conduct Commission operations do not affect businesses.

 

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:

Judicial Conduct Commission
Administration
645 S 200 E
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111-3837

 

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

Colin Winchester at the above address, by phone at 801-533-3200, by FAX at 801-533-3208, or by Internet E-mail at [e-mail]

 

Interested persons may present their views on this rule by submitting written comments to the address above no later than 5:00 p.m. on:

01/14/2005

 

This rule may become effective on:

01/15/2005

 

Authorized by:

Colin Winchester, Director

 

 

RULE TEXT

R595. Judicial Conduct Commission, Administration.

R595-4. Sanctions.

R595-4-1. Dismissals with Warning or upon Stated Conditions.

A. The Commission may dismiss a complaint or formal complaint with a warning or upon stated conditions if:

1. the judge stipulates that [misconduct]the conduct complained of has occurred;

2. the Commission finds that the [misconduct]stipulated conduct constitutes [troubling but relatively minor misbehavior]misconduct; and

3. the Commission finds that the misconduct is troubling but relatively minor and that no public sanction is warranted.

B. The Commission will not dismiss a complaint or formal complaint with a warning or upon stated conditions if:

1. the Commission finds that a public sanction is warranted;

2. the Commission has previously dismissed a complaint or formal complaint against the judge upon stated conditions and the current misconduct violates one or more of those conditions; or

3. the Commission finds that the current misconduct is the same or similar to misconduct established from a previous complaint or formal complaint that was dismissed with a warning or upon stated conditions.

 

R595-4-2. Sanctions Guidelines.

In determining an appropriate sanction for misconduct, the Commission shall consider the following non-exclusive factors:

A. the nature of the misconduct;

B. the gravity of the misconduct;

C. the extent to which the misconduct has been reported or is known among court employees, participants in the judicial system or the public, provided that the complainant or someone acting in concert with the complainant is not the source of the dissemination of information;

D. the extent to which the judge has accepted responsibility for the misconduct;

E. the extent to which the judge has made efforts to avoid repeating the same or similar misconduct;

F. the length of the judge's service on the bench;

G. the effect the misconduct has had upon the confidence of court employees, participants in the judicial system or the public in the integrity or impartiality of the judiciary;

H. the extent to which the judge profited or satisfied his or her personal desires as a result of the misconduct; and

I. the number and type of previous sanctions imposed against the judge.

 

KEY: judicial conduct commission

[2004]2005

Art. VIII, Sec. 13

78-8-101 through 78-8-108