Williams, Matter of, C
| Decision Date | 12 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. C,No. 3,1996,C,3 |
| Citation | 701 A.2d 825 |
| Parties | In the Matter of The Honorable Leonard L. WILLIAMS, a Judicial Officer. J. . Submitted: |
| Court | Delaware Court of the Judiciary |
Victor F. Battaglia, Sr., of Biggs & Battaglia, Wilmington, for Judicial Officer.
John A. Parkins, Jr., of Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, Presenter.
Before VEASEY, C.J., WALSH, HOLLAND, HARTNETT, and BERGER, JJ., RIDGELY, President Judge, and JACOBS, Vice Chancellor, 1 constituting the Court on the Judiciary.
In this proceeding to discipline a member of the judiciary pursuant to the Delaware Constitution, 2 we find that the judicial officer has committed acts of persistent misconduct in violation of the Delaware Judges' Code of Judicial Conduct. Accordingly, we impose a sanction appropriate under all the circumstances.
The judicial officer in this proceeding is The Honorable Leonard L. Williams, a judge of the Municipal Court of the City of Wilmington. Judge Williams presently occupies a unique status. He is a part-time judge and a practicing lawyer. The status of part-time Municipal Court judgeships was abolished in 1969, 3 but Judge Williams continues to hold office as a judge by reason of holding over pursuant to law, 4 despite the expiration of his term in 1978. In about six months, however, Judge Williams' part-time judicial position will be abolished by reason of the merger of the Municipal Court and the Court of Common Pleas. 5
Article IV, Section 37, of the Delaware Constitution confers authority on the Court on the Judiciary to censure, suspend, 6 remove or retire a judge for persistent misconduct in violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, as adopted by the Supreme Court. The Constitution also provides authority to discipline a judge for wilful misconduct in office, wilful failure to perform duties or the commission of an offense involving moral turpitude. None of those elements is before us in this proceeding. Thus, the operative constitutional provision here is that which authorizes the Court to discipline a judge for "other persistent misconduct in violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics."
The acts of alleged persistent misconduct at issue here are as follows:
A. Failure to pay withholding and property taxes.
B. Failure to pay parking fines.
C. As a lawyer, filing false certifications with the Delaware Supreme Court.
The following Canons of Judicial Ethics of the Delaware Judges' Code of Judicial Conduct, adopted by the Supreme Court, are implicated.
Canon 1. A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
A. An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct, and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.
Canon 2. A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Following the publication of certain articles in The News Journal regarding Judge Williams' alleged unpaid parking tickets and unpaid taxes, Judge Williams requested, in writing, that the Court on the Judiciary undertake an investigation. The Chief Justice assigned these matters to a panel of the Preliminary Investigatory Committee (PIC) of the Court on the Judiciary, pursuant to the rules of the Court. 7 That panel, consisting of Paul H. Boswell, Esquire (Chair), Edmund N. Carpenter, II, Esquire, and Mr. James H. Gilliam, Sr., investigated and concluded that there was probable cause to believe that Judge Williams was subject to sanctions under Article IV, Section 37, of the Constitution. 8 The Chief Justice, accordingly, appointed a Board of Examining Officers (the Board). 9 The Board consisted of the following judicial officers: Vice Chancellor (now Chancellor) William B. Chandler III (Chair), Supreme Court Justice William Duffy (retired), 10 and Superior Court Judge William T. Quillen.
The Board held a two-day evidentiary hearing and issued a report making certain findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended sanctions. We have independently reviewed the record and the report. We adopt substantially the findings of the Board as our findings of fact. We have concluded that the Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law on the merits are supported by clear and convincing evidence.
As of March 26, 1996, Judge Williams owed a total of $113,245.09 for unpaid federal, state and city payroll taxes for his law firm's employee payroll. These taxes included employee income tax, FICA, unemployment and Medicare. All these taxes were paid in full by the date of the hearing before the Board. Judge Williams admits he failed to pay these taxes in a timely manner, but claims that his secretary, upon realizing that the law firm did not have the funds to pay both office expenses and taxes, decided to pay the office expenses and failed to tell him that the taxes were not paid because she was worried about his health.
In addition to failing timely to pay the taxes, Judge Williams failed timely to file withholding reports. In some cases these reports were as much as two years late. He claims these reports were prepared by his accountant and timely signed and submitted to his secretary for mailing. Once he found out in 1993 that his secretary had not filed the reports, he immediately directed her to do so. Some of these reports were returned because the City would not accept filing without payment.
On March 13, 1996, The News Journal reported that Judge Williams owed over $37,000 in unpaid County property taxes. As of March 18, Denbuck Realty 11 owed $5,291.14 in unpaid County property taxes. The day after The News Journal article, he paid $22,083 in taxes on his personal residence. The following day he paid an additional $2,745.05 for property taxes on three of his other eighteen properties. Shortly thereafter, he agreed to pay the remaining taxes, including those for properties owned by Denbuck Realty, at a rate of one property per month, starting with a first payment on May 1. He failed to make a payment on May 1. Except for a $5,000 payment on May 31, 1996, apparently made in response to an inquiry from the County, he made no further payments until the morning of the Board's hearing, September 5, 1996. At the hearing, a representative of the County's Department of Finance testified that Judge Williams' currently due taxes totaled over $15,000 with just under $10,000 of that amount currently delinquent. 12 His pattern with respect to real estate taxes was to ignore them until the property was sold, the property was threatened with monition or he was otherwise pressured to pay them.
On March 5, 1996, the City of Wilmington posted a list in The News Journal of the top parking scofflaws. Judge Williams was identified as owing $2,328 in fines on eighty-one tickets. A separate article revealed that he paid these fines in full the day before publication of the article. The original information about his unpaid tickets, as published in The News Journal, was not correct. Only sixty-six tickets, not eighty-one as the newspaper article stated, were issued to vehicles owned by or registered to Judge Williams. Furthermore, thirty-seven of these sixty-six tickets were issued to a license plate and car that no longer belonged to him. The evidence indicates that Judge Williams actually had about twenty-nine parking tickets outstanding in March 1996 for vehicles owned by him or registered in his name.
The City of Wilmington periodically mails notices of unpaid parking tickets to the address of the vehicle's registered owner. For the ticketed vehicles owned by Judge Williams, this address was a home he formerly shared with his wife. Between 1985 and 1993 he did not live at this address, and he stated that he did not receive notices of tickets during this period.
By September 1989, Judge Williams had accumulated twelve outstanding unpaid tickets on his Mercedes Benz. Some of these tickets were issued almost three years earlier. Because his car was about to be towed, he marked three of the tickets with the words "pay" or "will pay," marked the remaining nine with a check mark (indicating they were to be protested) and gave all twelve tickets to Municipal Court Commissioner Laurence Fitchett for him to protest or present for payment. Mr. Fitchett briefly attempted to protest the nine tickets that Judge Williams had indicated he would not pay, but abandoned his effort because he did not believe it was his "role to do so at the Department of Revenue." Instead, Mr. Fitchett personally paid for all twelve tickets, told Judge Williams that all twelve were "satisfied," but requested repayment for only the three that Judge Williams had indicated he would pay. Judge Williams received the receipt indicating that Mr. Fitchett had paid for all twelve tickets, but he did not question why Mr. Fitchett requested reimbursement for only three.
In August 1990, Judge Williams' Chevrolet was booted. 13 Mr. Fitchett obtained a printout of outstanding tickets and marked those that he thought Judge Williams would pay. 14 Mr. Fitchett paid cash for seventeen tickets and the boot fee, but requested reimbursement for only eight tickets. Again, Judge Williams was provided with the receipt, but never questioned what happened to the other tickets.
In October 1992, Judge Williams' Mercedes Benz was booted. He provided Mr. Fitchett with tickets for the Mercedes that were marked "pay"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dean, In re, 15785
... ... See In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Staege, 165 Wis.2d 21, 24-25, 476 N.W.2d 876 (1991). Rather, he argues that, because refusal to pay the order ... In In the Matter of Williams, 701 A.2d 825, 831 (Del.Jud.1997), the Court on the Judiciary held that public censure and a three month suspension of a part-time judge and ... ...
-
In re Landis, 7,2004.
...A.2d 514, 515 (Del.2003). 3. In Re Bailey, 821 A.2d 851, 865 (Del.2003). 4. See: In Re Garrett, 835 A.2d 514 (Del.2003); In Re Williams, 701 A.2d 825 (Del.Jud.1997); In Re Tos, 610 A.2d 1370 5. See, e.g., In Re Garrett, 835 A.2d 514 (Del. 2003); In Re Tos, 610 A.2d 1370 (Del.1992); In Re Sa......
-
In the Matter of Bar of Delaware, No. 7, 2004 (DE 5/14/2004), 7, 2004.
...514, 515 (Del. 2003). 3. In Re Bailey, 821 A.2d 851, 865 (Del.2003). 4. See: In Re Garrett, 835 A.2d 514 (Del. 2003) ; In Re Williams, 701 A.2d 825 (Del. Jud. 1997); In Re Tos, 610 A.2d 1370 (Del. 5. See, e.g., In Re Garrett, 835 A.2d 514 (Del. 2003); In Re Tos, 610 A.2d 1370 (Del. 1992); I......
-
In re Coppadge
...misconduct” may include conduct that is negligent where there is evidence of a “deliberate and persistent pattern.” In re Williams, 701 A.2d 825, 832 (Del.Ct.Jud.1997). Judge Coppadge concedes that there is clear and convincing evidence that there were unreasonable delays in six of the eigh......