In re Judge William M. Watkins

• Decision Date: 26 March 2013
• Docket Number: Nos. 12–1008,12–0925.,s. 12–1008
• Citation: 757 S.E.2d 594,233 W.Va. 170
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: In the Matter of Judge William M. WATKINS, III, Putnam County Family Court Judge.

233 W.Va. 170

757 S.E.2d 594

In the Matter of Judge William M. WATKINS, III, Putnam County Family Court Judge.

Nos. 12–1008, 12–0925.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted Feb. 5, 2013.

Decided March 26, 2013.

Syllabus by the Court

1. “The Supreme Court of Appeals will make an independent evaluation of the record and recommendations of the Judicial [Hearing] Board in disciplinary proceedings.” Syllabus Point 1, West Virginia Judicial Inquiry Commission v. Dostert, 165 W.Va. 233, 271 S.E.2d 427 (1980).

2. “Under [Rule 4.5 of the West Virginia Rules of Disciplinary Procedure], the allegations of a complaint in a judicial disciplinary proceeding ‘must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.’ ” Syllabus Point 4, In Re Pauley, 173 W.Va. 228, 314 S.E.2d 391 (1983).

3. “In a disciplinary proceeding against a judge, in which the burden of proof is by clear and convincing evidence, where the parties enter into stipulations of fact, the facts so stipulated will be considered to have been proven as if the party bearing the burden of proof has produced clear and convincing evidence to prove the facts so stipulated.” Syllabus Point 4, Matter of Starcher, 202 W.Va. 55, 501 S.E.2d 772 (1998).

4. “The purpose of judicial disciplinary proceedings is the preservation and enhancement of public confidence in the honor, integrity, dignity, and efficiency of the members of the judiciary and the system of justice.” Syllabus, In the Matter of Gorby, 176 W.Va. 16, 339 S.E.2d 702 (1985).

5. “Pursuant to article VIII, section 8 of the West Virginia Constitution, this Court has the inherent and express authority to ‘prescribe, adopt, promulgate and amend rules prescribing a judicial code of ethics, and a code of regulations and standards of conduct and performances for justices, judges and magistrates, along with sanctions and penalties for any violation thereof [.]’ ” Syllabus Point 5, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Karl, 192 W.Va. 23, 449 S.E.2d 277 (1994).

6. Under Rule 4.12 of the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure [1998] the Judicial Hearing Board may recommend, or this Court may impose, one or more of the following sanctions for each violation by a justice, judge, or magistrate of the Code of Judicial Conduct: (1) admonishment; (2) reprimand; (3) censure; (4) suspension without pay for up to one year; (5) a fine of up to $5,000; or (6) involuntary retirement in limited circumstances. Additionally, this Court can assess the cost of the disciplinary proceedings against a justice, judge, or magistrate.

7. “Pursuant to Article VIII, Sections 3 and 8 of the West Virginia Constitution and Rule 4.12 of the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure, it is clearly within this Court's power and discretion to impose multiple sanctions against any justice, judge or magistrate for separate and distinct violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and to order that such sanctions be imposed consecutively.”Syllabus Point 5, In re Toler, 218 W.Va. 653, 625 S.E.2d 731 (2005).

8. This Court has the inherent power to inquire into the conduct of justices, judges and magistrates, and to impose any disciplinary measures short of impeachment that it deems necessary to preserve and enhance public confidence in the judiciary.

Rachael L. Fletcher Cipoletti, Esq., Judicial Investigation Commission, Charleston, WV, Special Judicial Disciplinary Counsel.

Robert P. Martin, Esq., Charleston, WV, for Judge Watkins.

KETCHUM, Justice:

In the instant case, a family court judge concedes that he was repeatedly intemperate with litigants, showed disrespect for authority, and was unable to properly manage his office and staff. The Judicial Hearing Board determined that the family court judge committed 24 separate violations of nine Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and recommended that the judge be suspended for the next four years, until the end of his term in December 2016. The family court judge challenges the Board's recommended sanction, and argues that this Court does not have the constitutional authority to impose such a lengthy suspension.

We disagree with the judge and adopt the Board's recommended sanctions in toto.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

William M. Watkins, III, became a family court judge in Putnam County in 2002. Judge Watkins was reelected as a family court judge in 2008, and his present term ends on December 31, 2016.

Beginning in 2011, Judge Watkins became the subject of numerous complaints filed with the Judicial Investigation Commission. These complaints were condensed into seven discrete counts alleging at least 24 violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. We discuss these violations in detail below.

Judge Watkins, through his attorney and in conjunction with judicial disciplinary counsel, agreed and stipulated that his conduct as alleged in the seven counts was true and that his actions violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.

On November 27, 2012, a Judicial Hearing Board for the Commission (“Hearing Board”) conducted a hearing. At the hearing, Judge Watkins testified that he was remorseful and would attempt in the future to conform to the requirements of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Hearing Board assessed Judge Watkins's demeanor and concluded that he “was less than sincere.”

In a written order dated December 3, 2012, the Hearing Board concluded that Judge Watkins's behavior exhibited a pattern and practice of failing to maintain honorable, high standards of conduct and integrity; failing to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary; failing to treat litigants in his courtroom with respect and dignity; and failing to maintain and require decorum and order in his courtroom. The Hearing Board found that Judge Watkins lacked control over his emotions and conduct, that he had a pattern of disrespect for authority, and that he lacked self-awareness. It further determined that he had an inability to properly manage his office and staff, and to manage his caseload. The Hearing Board was also troubled that Judge Watkins did not cooperate with judicial disciplinary counsel in the investigation of the various complaints against him.

The Hearing Board concluded that Judge Watkins had committed 24 separate violations of nine separate Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Under the Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure, the Hearing Board noted that for each violation it could recommend that this Court impose a maximum penalty of suspension for one year and a fine of up to $5,000, and that it could impose the penalties consecutively. SeeRule 4.12(4) and (5), Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure; Syllabus Point 5, In re Toler, 218 W.Va. 653, 625 S.E.2d 731 (2005). Hence, the Board could have recommended a maximum sanction against Judge Watkins of a 24–year suspension without pay plus a fine of $120,000.

In weighing the sanctions to recommend, the Board considered the number, nature, severity, and duration of the violations against Judge Watkins, the adverse effect of the violations upon various litigants, and the general public's perception of the judiciary as a result of the violations. The Board also considered Judge Watkins's “apparent failure to take meaningful responsibility for his misconduct.” Finally, the Board considered “the unlikelihood that [Judge Watkins] will be able to conform his conduct to the requirements of the Code of Judicial Conduct.” Accordingly, the Hearing Board recommended that this Court impose the following sanctions:

1. Judge Watkins should be censured on each of his twenty-four violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct;

2. Judge Watkins should be suspended, without pay, until his present term of office ends on December 31, 2016; and,

3. Judge Watkins should pay the costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of these proceedings.

As set forth below, we adopt the Hearing Board's recommended sanctions.

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

In reviewing a recommendation of the Judicial Hearing Board, this Court is required to make an independent evaluation of the Board's findings of fact and recommended sanctions in order to determine whether the allegations have been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Syllabus Point 1, West Virginia Judicial Inquiry Comm'n v. Dostert, 165 W.Va. 233, 271 S.E.2d 427 (1980); Syllabus Point 4, In re Pauley, 173 W.Va. 228, 314 S.E.2d 391 (1983). However, in a disciplinary proceeding against a judge, “where the parties enter into stipulations of fact, the facts so stipulated will be considered to have been proven as if the party bearing the burden of proof has produced clear and convincing evidence to prove the fact so stipulated.” Syllabus Point 4, Matter of Starcher, 202 W.Va. 55, 501 S.E.2d 772 (1998).

III.ANALYSIS

Judge Watkins stipulated to all of the misconduct alleged before the Judicial Hearing Board, and we accept the allegations as true. He disagrees, however, with the Hearing Board's recommended sanctions.

Judge Watkins argues that the recommendation that he be suspended from his office without pay until his present term ends in 2016 violates article VIII, section 8 of the West Virginia Constitution. That provision of the Constitution states that a “judge may be removed only by impeachment” by the Legislature. Judge Watkins argues that the Constitution only permits this Court to “temporarily suspend” a judge, and not effectively impeach and remove a judge from office for the duration of his or her term.

As we discuss below, we reject Judge Watkins's argument for two reasons. First, under the West Virginia Constitution, suspending a judge carries substantially different consequences than impeaching and removing a judge from office. Second, the Constitution explicitly and inherently empowers this Court to impose all disciplinary measures short of removal from the bench in order to foster public confidence in the judiciary, and to preserve its integrity.

A. Suspension vs. Impeachment and...