Rules govern what Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges can make public

Supreme Court Rule 12 builds on a 1972 constitutional amendment that established the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges. Section 21 of the rule, adopted in 1987 and revised 10 years later, requires that the process usually be confidential unless the judge under investigation asks for information to be released. Here is an overview.

•  Except as otherwise provided in the rule, all papers filed in proceedings before the commission must be confidential unless and until the commission files a recommendation with the Supreme Court.

•  If appropriate, the commission can make records available to the state’s chief disciplinary counsel; disciplinary authorities for judges or lawyers in other jurisdictions; members of a judicial nominating commission or the governor; and law enforcement.

•  If a judge is publicly accused of being under the scrutiny of the commission “resulting in substantial unfairness to the judge,” the commission can issue a short clarifying or corrective statement at the judge’s request.

•  If a judge is publicly accused of “serious reprehensible conduct” or a major offense, and the commission finds that there’s no need for more investigation or disciplinary action, the commission can issue a short explanatory statement.

•  When a formal hearing is ordered in a case that the public generally knows about and “in which there is a broad public interest, and in which confidence in the administration of justice is threatened due to lack of information” about the proceeding’s status or due process requirements, the commission may issue short announcements confirming the hearing, clarifying the process and defending the right of a judge to a fair hearing.

•  A charge, investigation and the action taken by the commission can be made public if the person under investigation asks.

Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges

The six-member commission includes two lawyers appointed by The Missouri Bar Board of Governors; two non-lawyers appointed by the governor; an appeals court judge selected by a majority of the Court of Appeals judges; and a circuit court judge chosen by a majority of the circuit judges of the state. Commission members serve six-year terms. The staff consists of Executive Director Jim Smith and two part-time assistants who share one position. Smith has $10,000 to $15,000 a year to pay an outside investigator. Commission members are:

Judge David Dowd, St. Louis Circuit Court, chairman

Sheldon Stock,* Greensfelder Hemker & Gale officer, secretary

Judge Joseph Ellis, Missouri Court of
Appeals Western District

Jennifer Gille Bacon,* Polsinelli Shugart shareholder

Adrienne Morgan, Chesterfield resident

Barry Aycock, Parma resident

*Terms end Dec. 31. Attorneys Art Margulis and H.A. “Skip” Walther will take their slots on the commission in January.

10 years of judicial discipline

Washington state law says all discipline of judges must be public, while Missouri allows for confidential discipline. Below are the results of discipline investigations in the two states, which have about the same number of judges, between July 2000 to June 2010.

*Includes one public reprimand.

**Judges already had left the bench. The commission retains jurisdiction over former judges and can disqualify them from serving again.

SOURCES: Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct; Missouri Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges