ONCE AGAIN, THE shroud of secrecy cloaking judicial-related processes is generating headlines, raising questions of improper influence, and accelerating legislative action on renewable judicial terms and other measures.

Last week, the Judicial Conduct Committee turned down requests to ease its secrecy provisions and withdrew the unusual permission it had granted to allow public comments by JCC members who dissented in the April 20 decision to admonish Chief Justice Brock. The JCC disclosed that it would accede to the request of Justices Broderick and Duggan and initiate an investigation into those justices’ "activity" during the JCC’s discussion of potential discipline of Chief Justice Brock.

Also, last week the Supreme Court announced it planned to create a more independent Judicial Conduct Commission along the lines proposed by a task force earlier this year. (See page 24 for the Court’s order detailing the new disciplinary arrangement.) Although the court early on had signaled its endorsement of the concept, the timing of the court’s announcement of the new JCC entity was criticized by legislative leaders who said it appeared to be an attempt to "pre-empt" their actions to reform judicial discipline, and because, under the court’s design, the disciplinary body’s decisions would still require court approval.

Meanwhile, the Senate was expected to vote late last week to pass CACR 16, a proposed constitutional amendment that would combine judicial selection and retention in an appointed commission. Among its provisions:

• The judicial selection commission would be made up of 11 members, five appointed by the governor, two each by the leaders of each legislative chamber and two appointed by the Supreme Court.
• The governor would be required to make judicial nominations from the list of candidates recommended by the commission.
• The commission would review judges every 10 years and it would have the power to "remove a judge from office upon a majority vote of the commission."

The House has not yet considered CACR 16, proposed by Sens. Mark Fernald, Clifton Below and Burt Cohen.

Another bill, still in the committee stage in the Senate, would create a Judicial Conduct Commission similar to the one recently authorized by the Supreme Court. At press time, Senate Judiciary Chair Ned Gordon said he was seeking to craft language that would preserve the due process rights of judges facing discipline but limit the discretion of the Supreme Court to alter the proposed disciplinary actions of the disciplinary committee.

Both Gordon and his House counterpart, Henry Mock are also considering moves to create study committees to consider judicial reform issues over the summer. SB 114, for example, would create a committee consisting of both House and Senate appointees to consider a wide range of issues.

The Judicial Conduct Committee’s April 20 decision to admonish Chief Justice David Brock for his actions in several matters uncovered in the impeachment investigation was subjected to public criticism centering on the alleged role of two other justices, John T. Broderick Jr. and James Duggan, in negotiations on behalf of Brock. Two JCC members who disagreed with the committee’s disposition of the Brock case were given unprecedented permission to speak publicly about their concerns, while the members of the majority who voted for admonishment continued to be bound by confidentiality rules.

The objections raised by JCC members Ann Coughlin and Terry Pfaff spawned several requests to the JCC. On May 8, the committee met again to consider requests from Brock to allow members of the majority to comment on the JCC’s handling of the case, and from legislators and the media asking for disclosures of materials from the JCC’s investigation. The Union Leader’s request for release of all of its records was denied, and a more limited request from House Speaker Gene Chandler was deferred while the committee "determines whether it can secure appropriate waivers concerning portions of its file," the JCC said in a brief statement following its May 8 meeting.

The JCC gave no timeline for its investigations.

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer