Carstensen, Matter of
| Decision Date | 17 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 67246,67246 |
| Citation | 316 N.W.2d 889 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Honorable L. D. CARSTENSEN, Judge of the Seventh Judicial District. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., and Harold Young, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commission.
Donald A. Wine of Davis, Hockenberg, Wine, Brown & Koehn, Des Moines, for L. D. Carstensen, Judge.
Considered en banc.
This is an original proceeding pursuant to application by the Iowa Commission on Judicial Qualifications to discipline The Honorable L. D. Carstensen, Judge of the Seventh Judicial District, for failure to comply with the provisions of Iowa S.Ct.R. 200. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Commission concluded that "Judge Carstensen failed to make and timely file accurate and complete records of the matters pending before him in persistent, flagrant disregard of rule 200." The Commission unanimously recommended that Judge Carstensen be disciplined. A majority of the commissioners recommended that he be suspended for a period of thirty days without pay. A minority of the commissioners, however, did not believe the Commission had authority to recommend what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken by this court. We grant the Commission's application and, with slight modification, impose the sanction recommended by the Commission.
I. The judicial qualifications functions of the Commission and this court. This is the first time we have had to consider an application by the Commission to discipline a judge. Consequently, it is our first opportunity to review the function of the Commission and its relationship to this court.
The Iowa Constitution provides:
[T]he Supreme Court shall have power to retire judges for disability and to discipline or remove them for good cause, upon application by a commission on judicial qualifications. The General Assembly shall provide by law for implementation of this section.
Iowa Const. art. V, § 19, amend. 33 (1972). Responding to this mandate, the legislature enacted legislation creating the Commission, specifying its duties and methods of operation, and defining the powers of this court with respect to judicial qualifications. See 1973 Session, 65th G.A., ch. 285, codified at §§ 605.26-.32, The Code.
A charge against a judge must be made in writing. After an investigation, the Commission may: (1) dismiss the charge if it is groundless; (2) dispose of the charge by informal conference with or communication to the judge if the charge appears to be substantiated but not of sufficient severity to warrant application to this court; or (3) hold an evidentiary hearing, which results in dismissal of the charge or application to this court to retire, discipline, or remove the judge. § 605.29, The Code.
Upon application to this court, it is our responsibility to review the record as in an appeal of an equity action and render an appropriate decree. § 605.30, The Code. Section 605.27, The Code, authorizes us to retire a judge "for permanent physical or mental disability which substantially interferes with the performance of his or her judicial duties" and to discipline or remove a judge "for persistent failure to perform his duties, habitual intemperance, willful misconduct in office, conduct which brings judicial office into disrepute, or substantial violation of the canons of judicial ethics."
Although the judicial qualifications legislation authorizes the Commission to "make application to the supreme court to retire, discipline, or remove" a judge, § 605.29(2), The Code, the legislation does not expressly specify whether the Commission is authorized to recommend what sanctions should be imposed by this court. During the proceedings on this charge, the Commission expressed concern over whether it had authority to make such a recommendation, and a minority of the commissioners concluded that it did not. Although it is not an issue in this case, we will discuss the matter for purposes of future guidance to the Commission.
The obvious purpose of the enactment of the judicial qualifications legislation is to maintain the integrity of the judicial branch of government by providing a fair and efficient method for determining whether an ailing judge should be retired or an errant judge removed or disciplined. In carrying out its statutory duties, the Commission functions in more than an evidence-gathering capacity; it determines whether the charges made against a judge are substantiated and of sufficient gravity to warrant consideration by this court. In conducting a hearing, the Commission has an opportunity to view and confront the witnesses, including the judge charged, and pass on their credibility. When an application is made to this court, we do not rehear the evidence but rely on the record supplied to us. Consequently, a recommendation as to disposition of the case gives perspective to the Commission's findings of fact and is beneficial to this court's endeavor to arrive at a just determination.
The Commission has express authority to recommend that a judge be disciplined. A recommendation as to the specific sanctions that should be imposed by this court promotes the overall purposes of the judicial qualifications legislation and is merely incidental to the Commission's express power. In several jurisdictions in which this issue has been considered, review boards have been found to possess implied constitutional or statutory authority to recommend specific sanctions when express authority did not exist. E.g., In re Dupont, 322 So.2d 180, 183 (La.1975); In re Diener, 268 Md. 659, 682-83, 304 A.2d 587, 600 (1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989, 94 S.Ct. 1586, 39 L.Ed.2d 885 (1974). We likewise conclude that the Commission has such implied authority under article V, section 19 and chapter 605. However, the Commission's recommendation is not conclusive. Since our review is de novo, we evaluate the circumstances of the case independently and will substitute our judgment for that of the Commission when appropriate.
II. Failure to comply with rule 200.
A. Origin and nature of the charge. On January 21, 1981, Chief Justice W. W. Reynoldson notified the Commission in writing that the Supreme Court had received numerous complaints that Judge Carstensen was not satisfactorily performing his judicial duties in several specified areas. After a preliminary investigation of these charges, the Commission served Judge Carstensen with notice that charges had been made against him and that it had scheduled a hearing thereon. The charges specified in the notice pertained to only one area of the original complaint--failure, at various times and in various ways, to comply with the requirements of rule 200. At the hearing, which was held on August 26, 1981, the Office of the Attorney General, which has the responsibility of prosecuting charges before the Commission on behalf of the State, § 605.29(2), The Code, and Judge Carstensen submitted a joint statement of agreed facts. On September 4, the Commission rendered its Findings of Fact, Report Recommendations, and Application, which recommended disciplinary action by this court for noncompliance with rule 200.
B. Rule 200. Iowa S.Ct.R. 200 provides:
Each senior judge, district judge, district associate judge and judicial magistrate shall report monthly to the supreme court, through the office of the court administrator of the judicial department, all matters taken under advisement in any case for longer than sixty days, together with an explanation of the reasons for the delay and an expected date of decision. If no matters have been taken under advisement over sixty days, the report shall state "none". Senior judges need only file reports for those months during which they perform judicial duties or have matters under advisement.
Any submission shall be reported when all hearings have been completed and the matter awaits decision without further appearance of the parties or their attorney. A matter shall be deemed submitted even though briefs or transcripts have been ordered but have not yet been filed.
The report shall be due on the tenth day of each calendar month for the period ending with the last day of the preceding calendar month. The first report shall be due January 10, 1978. The report shall be signed by the judge or magistrate and submitted on a form prescribed by the court administrator.
The court administrator shall promptly cause all reports received to be filed in the office of the clerk of the supreme court as records available for public inspection.
This rule was promulgated pursuant to the constitutional and statutory rule-making powers of this court: the Iowa Constitution provides that "the supreme court ... shall exercise a supervisory and administrative control over all inferior judicial tribunals throughout the state," Iowa Const. art. V, § 4, amend. 21 (1962), and section 684.21, The Code, stipulates that "[t]he supreme court shall adopt and enforce rules for the orderly and efficient administration of the courts inferior to the supreme court, which rules shall be executed by the chief justice."
Rule 200 was designed to provide a system of accountability, promoting the orderly and expeditious disposition of all matters submitted to a judge or magistrate. With the ever-increasing time demands placed on the trial bench by massive case loads; difficult, new, and complex litigation; and public scrutiny, it is imperative that those responsible for administering the judicial system be apprised of the status of each judge's individual case load. The reporting system established by rule 200...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Complaint Against Grady
...including the judges. See, sec. 20.66, 1949 Stats., sec. 20.260, 1955 Stats., sec. 256.54(8), 1961 Stats.13 In the Matter of Carstensen, 316 N.W.2d 889 (Iowa 1982), In re Weeks, 134 Ariz. 521, 658 P.2d 174 (Ariz.1983), and In re Jensen, 24 Cal.3d 72, 154 Cal.Rptr. 503, 593 P.2d 200 (Cal.197......
-
State v. Smith
...to all parties when necessary, and ensure that the pretrial process in each case is just and efficiently managed. Cf. In re Carstensen , 316 N.W.2d 889, 893 (Iowa 1982) ("A judge should diligently discharge his administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in judicial ad......
-
Seitz, In re, 90794
...of the administrative responsibilities of court officials contrary to Canon 3B(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, 42 see In re Carstensen, 316 N.W.2d 889 (Iowa, 1982); and a violation of MCR 8.107. This is another factually undisputed charge of misconduct for failure to comply with an expl......
-
IN RE INQUIRY CONCERNING McMORMICK
...N.W.2d at 710 (conduct that denies individuals fundamental procedural rights; length and character of judge's service); In re Carstensen, 316 N.W.2d 889, 895 (Iowa 1982) (persistent pattern or practice of conduct). Some courts have distilled these factors, and others, into a nonexclusive li......