In re White
| Citation | 458 Md. 60,181 A.3d 750 |
| Decision Date | 27 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. 5, Sept. Term, 2016 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF the Honorable Pamela J. WHITE |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
458 Md. 60
181 A.3d 750
In the MATTER OF the Honorable Pamela J. WHITE
Misc. No. 5, Sept. Term, 2016
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
March 27, 2018
Argued & reargued by Andrew Jay Graham (Louis P. Malick, Kramon & Graham, P.A., Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioner.
Argued & reargued by Bruce L. Marcus (Sydney M. Patterson, MarcusBonsib, LLC, Greenbelt, MD; Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland and Julia Doyle Bernhardt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.
Argued & reargued before Barbera, C.J., Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Hotten, Getty, Glenn T. Harrell, Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Adkins, J.
We must decide whether proceedings before the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities ("Commission") violated a judge's due process rights. As we explained last year, although we have no appellate jurisdiction to review a judge's
exceptions to the Commission's determination to issue a public reprimand after public charges and a contested hearing, the common law writ of mandamus provides an avenue for a judge to challenge the fundamental fairness of the proceedings before the Commission. Matter of White , 451 Md. 630, 649–50, 155 A.3d 463 (2017) (per curiam) [hereinafter White I ]. We previously refrained from deciding the due process claims made by Petitioner, Judge Pamela J. White, because we did not have the full record of the Commission proceedings before us. Id. at 652–53, 155 A.3d 463. After review of the complete record, we hold that, although the Commission violated applicable Maryland Rules, these violations did not ultimately deprive Judge White of a fundamentally fair proceeding.
BACKGROUND
Discipline Or Removal Of Judges
Article IV, §§ 4A – 4B of the Maryland Constitution provides a special process for the discipline or removal of a judge who has committed misconduct, or who is found to suffer from a disability. Article IV, § 4A(a) creates the Commission, and Article IV, § 4B(a)(1) authorizes it to conduct investigations of complaints about judges. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Commission may "issue a reprimand and [has] the power to recommend to the Court of Appeals the removal, censure, or
other appropriate disciplining of a judge or, in an appropriate case, retirement." Id. , § 4B (a)(2). Commission proceedings are confidential and privileged, except as provided by rule of this Court. Id. , § 4B (a)(3). The General Assembly granted the Commission additional powers relating to investigations and hearings. See Md. Code (1973, 2013 Repl. Vol.), §§ 13–401 – 13–403 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (power to issue and enforce subpoenas, administer oaths or affirmations, and grant immunity to witnesses).
The Constitution also delegates to this Court the task of prescribing "the means to implement and enforce the powers of the Commission and the practice and procedure before the
Commission." Md. Const. art. IV, § 4B (a)(5). We have done so in the Maryland Rules at 18–401 et seq.1
Maryland Rule 18–402(d) empowers the Commission to appoint an Investigative Counsel. Upon submission of a complaint to the Commission, Investigative Counsel may dismiss the complaint if "the complaint does not allege facts that, if true, would constitute a disability or sanctionable conduct and that there are no reasonable grounds for a preliminary investigation ...." Md. Rule 18–404(c). If Investigative Counsel does not dismiss the complaint, she then conducts a preliminary investigation of the alleged misconduct. Id. (d). Unless the Commission or the Judicial Inquiry Board ("Inquiry Board") (discussed infra ) directs otherwise, Investigative Counsel shall notify the judge of the pendency of the investigation before its conclusion.2 Id. (e)(4). Investigative Counsel must "afford the judge a reasonable opportunity to present, in person or in writing, such information as the judge chooses." Id. (e)(5). Investigative Counsel has 90 days to complete her preliminary investigation. Id. (e)(6). Upon application by Investigative Counsel, and for good cause, the Inquiry Board shall extend the time for completing the preliminary investigation
for an additional 30–day period. Id. The Commission may dismiss the complaint and terminate an investigation if Investigative Counsel fails to comply with these time requirements. Id.
Maryland Rule 18–403(a) requires the Commission to "appoint an [Inquiry] Board consisting of two judges, two attorneys, and three public members who are not attorneys or judges." After completing a preliminary investigation, Investigative Counsel shall report the results of her investigation to the Inquiry Board with a recommendation of either: (1) dismissal; (2) authorization of further investigation; (3) entering into a private reprimand or deferred discipline agreement; or (4) filing public charges. Md. Rule 18–404(f). The Inquiry Board must continually monitor
the investigation and review the reports and recommendations of Investigative Counsel. Id. (g).
Upon reviewing the results of the preliminary investigation, the Inquiry Board prepares a report for submission to the Commission. Id. (j)(1). The report must include a recommendation for further action by the Commission. The Inquiry Board may not recommend a dismissal with warning, a private reprimand, or a deferred discipline agreement unless the respondent judge consents to the remedy. Id. After the Commission receives the Inquiry Board's report, it must promptly transmit a copy to the judge and Investigative Counsel. Id. (j)(4). Both Investigative Counsel and the judge have an opportunity to file objections to the Inquiry Board's report. Id. (k).
After reviewing the Inquiry Board's report and upon a finding of probable cause, the Commission may direct Investigative Counsel to begin proceedings against the judge by filing charges with the Commission. Md. Rule 18–407(a). The judge may then file a response to the charges. Id. (c). The Commission must also notify the judge of the date, time, and place of a hearing on the charges. Id. (d).
Following the filing of charges, the respondent judge has several procedural rights expressly recognized by the Rules:
The judge has the right to inspect and copy the Commission Record, to a prompt hearing on the charges, to be represented by an attorney, to the issuance of subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and for the production of designated documents and other tangible things, to present evidence and argument, and to examine and cross-examine witnesses.
Id. at (f). The Rules also provide that prehearing discovery is "governed by Title 2, Chapter 400 of these Rules,[3 ] except that the Chair of the Commission, rather than the court, may limit the scope of discovery, enter protective orders permitted by Rule 2–403, and resolve other discovery issues." Id. (g)(3). At the hearing, the rules of evidence apply. Id. (i)(5).
If the Commission finds clear and convincing evidence that the judge has committed sanctionable conduct, "it shall either issue a public reprimand for the sanctionable conduct or refer the matter to the Court of Appeals ...." Id. (j). If it finds otherwise, the Commission will dismiss the charges and terminate the proceedings. Id.
Joyner v. Veolia Transp. Servs. Inc.
Since 2007, Judge Pamela J. White (whom we shall sometimes refer to as "Respondent")4 has served as an Associate Judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. She also served as the Supervising Judge for the Circuit Court's Civil Alternative Dispute Resolution Program ("ADR") from 2009 until 2015. In 2014, Respondent presided over hearings in a civil matter. Louise V. Joyner v. Veolia Transp. Servs. Inc., et al. , Case No. 24–C–014000589 (Baltimore City Circuit Court). Attorney Rickey Nelson Jones represented the plaintiff, Joyner, in her action for negligence while attorney Andrew Stephenson represented the defendant, Veolia.5
Early in the litigation, Veolia moved to dismiss Joyner's punitive damages claim. When counsel for both parties appeared before Judge White for a hearing on the motion to dismiss, Jones tried to justify his claim for punitive damages, which stemmed from the phone calls made by an insurance adjuster to the plaintiff following the accident. Dissatisfied with Jones's attempted explanation, Judge White said:
The Court: Oh Mr. Jones, are you telling me this with a straight face? .... Are you telling me as an officer of the court, admitted to the bar, with a straight face, that you think you have an ill-will punitive damages claim against Veolia Transportation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Reese
...to issue [sanction] after public charges and a contested hearing," unless the case is referred by the Commission. Matter of White , 458 Md. 60, 67–68, 181 A.3d 750, 754 (2018).We explained this Court's limited jurisdictional reach in Matter of White , 451 Md. 630, 155 A.3d 463 (2017) (" Whi......
-
In re Reese
...to issue [sanction] after public charges and a contested hearing," unless the case is referred by the Commission. Matter of White, 458 Md. 60, 67-68, 181 A.3d 750, 754 (2018). We explained this Court's limited jurisdictional reach in Matter of White, 451 Md. 630, 155 A.3d 463 (2017) ("White......
-
In re Reese
...to issue [sanction] after public charges and a contested hearing," unless the case is referred by the Commission. Matter of White, 458 Md. 60, 67-68, 181 A.3d 750, 754 (2018). We explained this Court's limited jurisdictional reach in Matter of White, 451 Md. 630, 155 A.3d 463 (2017) ("White......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Ucheomumu
...documents, and those documents were similar to a memorandum that this Court stated was not attorney work product in Matter of White, 458 Md. 60, 92, 181 A.3d 750, 768 (2018). In both his Exceptions and the Motion to Unseal, Ucheomumu argued that the hearing judge improperly sealed the trans......