As a professional "neutral" (arbitrator, mediator and ALJ) in New Mexico, I am always alert to ethical issues, and public perceptions of neutrals and "justice" generally in my community. As many know, New Mexico has suffered for several years under charges related to the political and corruption financial misconduct of various elected officials and public officers. Unfortunately, the reputation of her judiciary has also taken a hit in the last year. It is good, however, to see the State Supreme Court take a strong stand for the Code of Judicial Conduct of late, in two of the following cases, and to make a decisive ruling against a non-judicial public officer in the final case.
In the Matter of Robert Robles, Inquiry No. 2011-022 (May 31, 2011).
Judge Robles was disciplined upon stipulation for having driven while under the influence of alcohol.
It was stipulated that Robles' conduct violated Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 21-100 (upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary); 21-200(A) (requiring a judge to "act at all times in a manner that promotes public confident in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary"); 21-300(B)(2) (requiring a judge to "be faithful to the law"); and 21-500(A)(1)-(4) (requiring a judge to conduct extra-judicial activities to minimize conflict with judicial obligations).
The court also noted the public's growing concern about individuals driving under the influence, and the fact that judges are daily "called upon to pass judgement and make rulings regarding" DWI cases.
The court accepted Robles' permanent retirement from the bench.
In the Matter of Rachel Walker, Inquiry No. 2010-026 (Mar. 23, 2011).
Judge Walker was disciplined upon stipulation for having yelled during a hearing "Shut up, Shut up," calling an attorney a liar and publicly questioning his ability to represent his client, and then refusing to recuse herself from hearing the same defense attorney's cases or subsequent contempt hearing.
The court noted that "a judge is held to a higher standard than the average citizen." Vincent, 2007NMCS056, 143 NM 56. It found Walker violated "the most basic tenet of judicial conduct--that a judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary," by failing to be patient and respectful to those who come before her. See Rule 21300(B)(4). Additionally, Walker by her conduct failed to "promote[] public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." See Rule 21200(A).
Although Walker had already been removed by retention election, she was also formally reprimanded and conditions imposed for any subsequent return to the bench.
State v. Carol K. Sloan, 2011-NMSC-020.
Ms. Sloan was a Public Regulation Commission (PRC) Commissioner, who was convicted and sentenced for the felony offense of aggravated battery nd aggravated burglary arising from domestic troubles.
While the court readily removed her from office on the AG's Petition for a writ of quo warranto (filed the date of conviction), it required briefing and argument as to the effective date of removal: as of the date she was found guilty; the date she was sentenced; or the day the court issued its writ. The court ultimately rejected Sloan's arguments that quo warranto was an inappropriate means for removing someone who was qualified at the time of taking office but later became disqualified, and concluded that Sloan was forfeited from her office as of the date of her felony conviction.
If you are interested in arbitration, mediation, or contract ALJ services, please Pilar Vaile, P.C. at (505) 247-0802 or info@pilarvailepc.com.
