No. 27333 (New Rule): R595-4. Sanctions

DAR File No.: 27333
Filed: 08/04/2004, 02:38
Received by: NL

 

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

The change is proposed after comprehensive revision of the rule pursuant to division review, recent legislative changes (S.B. 161 (2004)), the Supreme Court's opinion, In re Anderson, and Legislative Audit 2003-10. (DAR NOTE: S. B. 161 is found at UT L 2004 Ch 293, and was effective 05/03/2004.)

 

Summary of the rule or change:

The changes involve repealing the current rule and replacing it with four new rules. This proposed new rule provides guidelines for the imposition of sanctions by the Judicial Conduct Commission. (DAR NOTE: The proposed repeal of Rule R595-1 in under DAR No. 27329, and the proposed new rules are R595-1 under DAR No. 27330, R595-2 under DAR No. 27331, R595-3 under DAR No. 27332, and R595-4 under DAR No. 27333 all in this issue.)

 

State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:

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

 

This rule or change incorporates by reference the following material:

None.

 

Anticipated cost or savings to:

the state budget:

None--This comprehensive revision does not alter the basic operations or functions of the Judicial Conduct Commission, and therefore, does not result in either cost or savings to the State.

 

local governments:

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

 

other persons:

None--This comprehensive revision does not alter the basic operations or functions of the Judicial Conduct Commission, and therefore, does not result in either cost or savings to other persons.

 

Compliance costs for affected persons:

None--This comprehensive revision does not alter the basic operations or functions of the Judicial Conduct Commission, and therefore, does 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--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:

10/01/2004

 

This rule may become effective on:

10/02/2004

 

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 has occurred;

2. the Commission finds that the misconduct constitutes troubling but relatively minor misbehavior; and

3. the Commission finds 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;

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

Art. VIII, Sec. 13

78-8-101 through 78-8-108