DeSaulnier, In re
| Decision Date | 20 October 1971 |
| Citation | 274 N.E.2d 454,360 Mass. 757 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Edward J. DeSAULNIER, Jr., et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Robert V. Mulkern, Worcester, for respondent Brogna.
Walter J. Hurley, Boston, for respondent DeSaulnier.
Edward B. Hanify, Special Counsel, Boston (John M. Harrington, Jr., Special Counsel, Boston, with him).
Present: TAURO, C.J., and CUTTER, SPIEGEL, REARDON, QUIRICO, BRAUCHER and HENNESSEY, JJ.
1. On October 4, 1971, special counsel (appointed by this court) filed in open court informations relating to one or both of the respondents, each of whom is an associate justice of the Superior Court. On October 4, 1971, also, in open court, each respondent was directed to file (on or before October 19, 1971) an answer to the allegations contained in these informations and was notified that thereafter the matter would be set down for early hearing to establish the facts.
2. On October 7, 1971, each respondent filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting in effect (1) that this court has no jurisdiction to remove him from his judicial office; (2) that, by the Constitution of the Commonwealth (Part II, c. 1, § 2, art. 8, and § 3, art. 6, and also c. 3, art. 1) jurisdiction to remove him from his judicial office rests either with the Senate as a court to determine impeachments or with the Governor with the consent of the Council upon address of both houses of the Legislature; and (3) that disciplinary action cannot be taken by this court against him as a member of the bar when by statute, as a judge, he is barred from the practice of law (see G.L. c. 212, § 27, as amended through St.1969, c. 845, § 3).
3. Neither information requests any specific relief. Each information merely submits for the consideration of this court, for any appropriate action, allegations of fact which, in the aggregate, call for careful judicial inquiry and investigation and require us to ascertain whether they are true. If they are found to be true, some or all of these allegations may require action by this court in the public interest to protect the integrity and reputation of the judicial process and of judicial administration. If the allegations are found not to be true or not proved, that should be announced at an early date in the public interest and in fairness to each of the respondents.
4. We are of opinion that we have both the duty and power to make such an inquiry and to hold hearings for the purposes stated above. Other allegations may be added by amendment, and evidence admitted concerning them, as the hearings progress, (a) on the motion of special counsel; (b) on motion of either respondent; or (c) by direction of this court on its own motion. Further orders of this court may affect the direction and scope of the inquiry.
5. The power, authority, and jurisdiction of this court to make the inquiry and to hold hearings rest on at least the following grounds, among others: (a) the inherent common law and constitutional powers of this court, as the highest constitutional court of the Commonwealth, to protect and preserve the integrity of the judicial system and to supervise the administration of justice; (b) the supervisory powers confirmed to this court by G.L. c. 211, § 3, as amended; (c) the power of this court to maintain and impose discipline with respect to the conduct of all members of the bar, either as lawyers engaged in practice or as judicial officers; and (d) the power of this court to establish and enforce rules of court for the orderly conduct (1) of officers and judges of the courts and (2) of judicial business and administration. 1 We need not now decide what other common law, equity, or inherent judicial powers and jurisdiction may exist. Determination of the precise powers, if any, to be exercised, and their scope (except as stated in par. 7, below), should await the presentation and consideration of evidence.
6. The facts developed in this inquiry may result in an order or orders affecting the respondents, or either of them, and such orders may be made pursuant to any aspect of the power, authority, and jurisdiction available to this court, as may appear to this court appropriate after hearing. Such an inquiry may also aid this court in the exercise of its power to promulgate rules concerning the conduct of the judiciary and members of the bar.
7. We now rule that this court has jurisdiction to impose appropriate discipline upon a member of the bar, who is also a judge, for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Halverson v. Hardcastle
...and thus the Georgia Supreme Court had authority to promulgate and enforce its code of judicial conduct); In re DeSaulnier, 360 Mass. 757, 274 N.E.2d 454, 456 (1971) (pointing out that the Massachusetts Supreme Court's inherent and constitutional authority, as highest court in the state, "t......
-
Opinions of the Justices to the Senate
...confirmed to the Supreme Judicial Court the powers of judicial administration inherent in that court. In re De Saulnier (No. 1), 360 Mass. 757, 758--759, 274 N.E.2d 454 (1971). The repository of the inherent powers of judicial administration is the full court. Legislation which purports to ......
-
Diener, In re
...and the reinstatement of members of the bar, relying on In re Keenan, 313 Mass. 186, 47 N.E.2d 12, 25-27 (1943). In re De Saulnier, 1971 Mass.A.S. 1345, 274 N.E.2d 454 (1971); 1971 Mass.A.S. 1689, 276 N.E.2d 278 (1971); 1972 Mass.A.S. 65, 279 N.E.2d 296 (1972), involving the misconduct of a......
-
In re Judge William M. Watkins
...(1991); In re Kirby, 350 N.W.2d 344, 347–48 (Minn.1984); In re Franciscus, 471 Pa. 53, 369 A.2d 1190, 1191 (1977); In re DeSaulnier, 360 Mass. 757, 274 N.E.2d 454, 456 (1971). 10. Arch M. Cantrall, “The Judge as a Leader: The Embodiment of the Ideal of Justice,” 45 ABA Journal 339, 340 (Apr......