Utah Judicial Conduct Commission

This article is currently outside of Ballotpedia's coverage scope and does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage scope grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.

The Utah Judicial Conduct Commission is the judicial disciplinary agency in Utah responsible for initiating, receiving and investigating complaints concerning judicial misconduct. The agency also evaluates disability cases, such as when a judge becomes disabled and is no longer able to serve on the state's courts.

The commission investigates and resolves judicial misconduct complaints made against judges serving on the state supreme court, court of appeals, district courts, juvenile courts and justice courts. The commission investigates complaints of judicial misconduct and, when needed, makes a recommendation to the supreme court regarding any discipline to be imposed. The commission has no authority to discipline judges.

According to Utah's Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge may be charged with misconduct for any of the following reasons:

• Any activity by a judge, serving on a state court, which constitutes willful misconduct in office.
• Conviction for a felony, under either state or federal law.
• The willful and persistent failure to perform judicial duties.
• A disability that seriously interferes with the performance of judicial duties.
• Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice or which reflects poorly on the judiciary.^[1]

The commission does not have the authority to:

• Give legal advice or assistance.
• Remove a judge from a particular court case.
• Order a judge to take a particular action in a case.
• Change or overturn the decision of a judge.
• Discipline a judge for a decision they have made in a case.
• Order a stay in a court case until a misconduct complaint is resolved.
• Accept complaints about the conduct of a federal judge, an attorney, a court commissioner, court employees or other government employees.^[1]

Organization[edit]

Members[edit]

The commission is made up of 11 members who serve four-year terms. Members may only serve on the commission for a total of eight years. If a member leaves their position midterm, a new member is appointed to serve the remainder of the unexpired term.^[2]

The members of the commission include judges, lawyers, legislators and members of the public, selected as follows:

• Two judges who are appointed by the state supreme court.
• Two lawyers, who are members of the Utah State Bar, also appointed by the state supreme court.
• Two legislators, who are members of the house of representatives, appointed by the speaker of the house.
• Two legislators, who are members of the state senate, appointed by the president of the senate.
• Three members of the public, who are not attorneys, appointed by the governor.

A current list of members can be found here.^[3]

Commission member pay[edit]

Members of the commission, who are not also members of the legislature, may not be paid for their service on commission. However, they may be paid per diem and travel expenses. Legislators receive compensation for serving on the commission, in accordance with state rules regarding the payment of expenses and pay for legislators.^[4]

Administrative staff[edit]

In addition to those serving on the commission, an executive committee, composed of three members of the commission, is responsible for hiring an executive director. The executive director is responsible for handling the commission's administrative tasks. For instance, the executive director reviews all incoming complaints to make sure they are within the commission's jurisdiction. The commission also has two other staff members.^[1] The executive director is also responsible for hiring contract investigators to conduct investigations of misconduct complaints.^[5]

Budget[edit]

The commission is funded by an annual appropriation from the Utah State Legislature.^[6]

Complaint procedure[edit]

The commission may investigate a misconduct complaint regarding allegations against a judge relating to the judge's time on a court or from before the judge's service.^[7]

The commission retains jurisdiction to investigate complaints of misconduct against former judges for incidents which may have occurred during the judicial appointment process or while an individual was serving as a judge. However, the complaint must be filed before the judge leaves office.^[7]

Filing a complaint[edit]

The commission cannot begin an investigation until a written complaint is received. After the form is completed, it must be signed and mailed to the commission. Once a complaint is received, the commission will send out an acknowledgment letter, within seven to 10 business days.

Complaint forms can be accessed here^[8] and are available in English and Spanish.

Confidentiality[edit]

Judicial misconduct investigations remain confidential until a recommendation is filed, by the commission, with the state supreme court. The recommendation then becomes public. However, any documents relating to the investigation of the complaint, as well as commission meetings and hearings on formal misconduct charges, remain confidential. Related documents may be released, by an order of the Utah Supreme Court.^[7]

Complaint investigation/resolution process[edit]

The complaint investigation process involves four steps:

• Initial screening: A complaint is filed with, or initiated by, the commission. The executive director for the commission reviews all complaints received to determine whether the commission has jurisdiction. The complaint is then assigned to a contract investigator by the executive director.^[5]

• Preliminary investigation: An initial investigation is conducted. The investigator prepares a written, preliminary investigation report and recommends whether the complaint should be dismissed or whether the commission should go forward with a full investigation. The commission members meet and vote on the next step in the handling of the complaint.

It takes approximately 90 days to complete the preliminary investigation for a judicial misconduct complaint. If a case progresses to the next stage for further investigation, it generally takes longer to resolve.^[9]

During an investigation, if the commission determines a judge may have committed a crime, in violation of state or federal law, the commission is required to refer the matter to the local prosecutor's office. However, the commission may continue the judicial misconduct investigation while the criminal matter is being investigated and/or prosecuted. A judge under investigation in a state or federal criminal matter may be placed on paid or unpaid administrative leave, by the chief justice of the supreme court, if there is a reasonable belief that a crime took place.^[10]

In cases where a judge is charged or indicted for a class A misdemeanor or felony, under federal or state law, the supreme court is required to place the judge on either paid or unpaid administrative leave until the criminal matter is resolved. If the judge is not convicted, the judge may be reinstated and retain his or her position on the court.^[10]

• Full investigation: The commission informs the judge, who is the subject of the complaint, about the complaint and investigation. Depending on the response from the judge, the investigator may recommend the commission bring formal charges against the judge. Alternatively, the complaint may be dismissed. The commission then meets again and votes on whether to dismiss the complaint or file formal charges. (Within 10 days after the start of a full investigation, the commission's executive director must notify the judge, who is the subject of a misconduct investigation, that such an investigation was authorized.)

• Formal proceedings: Formal charges are filed against the judge. The judge then has 20 days to respond to the charges.^[11] The charges may be resolved by:

• reprimand
• censure
• suspension
• removal from office
• involuntary retirement

Or the case may continue and a confidential hearing may be held. After the hearing, the commission may make one of the recommendations listed above.

• Supreme court review: The commission's recommendation is then filed with the supreme court. The court reviews the commission's recommendations with regard to the facts and law involved in the matter and may allow additional evidence to be presented before making a determination in a misconduct case. After review, the court may approve, reject or modify the commission's recommendation. Once a recommendation is filed with the court, it becomes public. However, any other documents relating to the case may only be released publicly by an order of the supreme court. (The supreme court does not review matters which are dismissed by the commission.)^[12]

Withdrawing a complaint[edit]

Before formal charges are filed, a person who files a misconduct complaint may withdraw it. However, the commission may still opt to move forward with the complaint or dismiss it.^[11]

Dismissal of complaints[edit]

A large number of misconduct complaints received by the commission are dismissed. Complaints are commonly dismissed for one of the following reasons:

• no misconduct - complaint has no basis or is frivolous
• no jurisdiction - complaint received regarding person who is not a judge or not a state court judge
• appellate matter - complaint pertains to a judge's ruling in a case
• lack of proof - evidence to support allegations in complaint not found during the investigation^[13]

Complaint statistics[edit]

1996-2013[edit]

The table below compares the number of misconduct complaints received by the commission and the number of complaints that were resolved, each year. Statistics were compiled using information from the commission's annual reports, available for the years 2003 to 2013, as well as a report by the Utah Legislative Auditor General. In years where more complaints were resolved than received, some complaints resolved may have been carried over from previous years.^[13][14]

Resolved misconduct cases, by type of sanction, year and judge[edit]

Between January 1997 (the earliest date records became available) and the end of 2013, a total of 35 judicial misconduct complaints were resolved by a public disposition.

Judges removed from office[edit]

2003: Raymond Harding, Jr.
2004: Joseph Anderson
2006: Walter Steed

Judges suspended[edit]

None.

Judges reprimanded or censured[edit]

1997: William Herring, Marlynn Lema, Sharon McCully
1998: Peggy Acomb, David Payne, James Shumate
1999: Dee Alldredge, Patricia Chavez, Joseph Dimick, David Young
2000: Samuel Bylsma, Michael Glassmann, David Young
2003: Richard Dobson
2005: Shawn Farris, Michael Kwan
2006: Bruce Halliday
2007: Paul Cox, Leslie Lewis
2008: Darla Serassio
2009: Garry Sampson
2010: Kenneth Adams, Stevan W. Ridge
2011: Ronald R. Hare
2012: Robert G. Peters
2013: Kevin Christensen, Gary Johnson, Virginia Ward

Judges who resigned or retired after being charged with misconduct[edit]

2012: Keith L. Stoney^[15]

Documents available for the judges listed above can be accessed here.^[16]

Approved sanctions, 1997-2013[edit]

The list below compares the types of sanctions handed down in misconduct cases which the commission resolved and the Utah Supreme Court approved. Information regarding the cases was released to the public between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2013.^[16]

This list shows the number of judges who were found guilty of misconduct by the commission between 1997 and 2013.

• Censure: 9
• Removal: 3
• Reprimand: 20
• Retirement: 1

Governing laws[edit]

The laws governing the commission are set forth in the Utah Constitution, in an amendment to Article VII, Section 13.

The laws of the state of Utah, which govern how the commission was created, and how it operates, are detailed in the Utah Code, Title 78A Chapter 11.^[17]

Utah's Code of Judicial Conduct explains the requirements for the behavior of the state's judges. More complete information regarding the provisions of the code can be found here^[18]

There are four primary canons regarding judicial conduct:

• Canon 1 addresses the requirements for a judge in the areas of independence, integrity, impartiality and impropriety.

• Canon 2 relates to the activities of a judge in court and on the bench.

• Canon 3 discusses the requirements which apply to a judge's activities outside the court and off the bench.

• Canon 4 applies to the political activities of judges in the state.^[19]

Utah's Administrative Code specifies the rules governing the administrative aspects of the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission.^[20]

History of the commission[edit]

The commission was initially created by the legislature in 1971, under Section 38, 1971 Utah Laws 113. However, in 1984, voters approved an amendment to the Utah Constitution. The amendment, created under Article VII, Section 13, specifically authorized the legislature to create the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission, as well as the procedures used to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct and recommend discipline of judges for misconduct, when appropriate. Prior to the amendment, judges in the state who committed misconduct were threatened with impeachment or removal from office, but suffered no specific discipline or sanctions.^[13]

Contact information[edit]

Utah Judicial Conduct Commission
1385 South State St., Suite 143
Salt Lake City, UT 84115

Phone: (801) 468-0021

See also[edit]

• Courts in Utah

External links[edit]

• Utah Judicial Conduct Commission

Footnotes[edit]

	v • e State of Utah Salt Lake City (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy