Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission v. Simes
381 S.W.3d 764
Ark.2011Background
- Commission filed final findings and recommended removal of Judge Simes for alleged violations of Canons 1, 2(A), and 3(B)(1), (2), (5), and (7) arising from Weaver v. City of West Helena; Weaver case involved TRO and recusal issues; Simes conducted Rule 11 sanctions proceedings without proper notice; Weaver court found sanctions were improper and referred to Commission; Commission panel found multiple Canon violations; Supreme Court conducted de novo review and imposed reprimand with removal not adopted; prior discipline history included earlier informal adjustments and reprimands; final order: sanctions and reprimand under Canons 2(A) and 3(B)(2); Rule 9(B) bad-faith standard discussed; Rule 8 due-process issues noted; part of canons and results reflected in the majority decision with concurrence/dissent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Simes violate Canons 2(A) and 3(B)(1) by failing to recuse from Rule 11 proceedings? | Weaver argued lack of recusal violated the rules. | Simes claimed he acted within his authority and notice issues were procedural. | The court rejected due to lack of clear notice; issue resolved against disciplinary finding on recusal. |
| Was there due-process notice under Rule 8 for the challenged charges? | Commission failed to notify Simes about failure to recuse charge. | Simes argued lack of notice should preclude sanctions. | Rule 8 violation found; due-process rights violated; charge insufficiently notified. |
| Did the January 7 Rule 11 hearing occur as a de facto sanction proceeding without proper notice? | Murray/Weaver subjected to sanctions procedure not properly noticed. | Hearing was part of recusal matter; sanctions could be related. | Canon 2(A) and 3(B)(2) findings rejected as clearly erroneous for lack of clear bad faith evidence. |
| Did Simes rely on improper bases or misrepresent evidence in imposing sanctions? | Weaver argued withdrawal of an allegation and misstatement of testimony. | Simes believed allegations were unverified and alleged judge-shopping issue; contested misrepresentation. | Canon 1 and 3(B)(2) findings rejected as clearly erroneous; no bad-faith injury established. |
| Should the sanction be removal or reprimand given findings? | Commission recommended removal based on multiple Canon violations. | Court should consider prior discipline and scope of misconduct; some errors not proven in bad faith. | Majority: reprimand ordered; removal rejected; findings accepted in part, modified in part; final decision to reprimand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weaver v. City of West Helena, 367 Ark. 159 (Ark. 2006) (discusses Rule 11 sanctions and notice issues; sanctions deemed improper in Weaver; referral to JDDC)
- Walls v. State, 341 Ark. 787 (Ark. 2000) (procedural review; judicial discipline context cited for rule/process standards)
- Proctor, 2010 Ark. 38 (Ark. 2010) (de novo review standard in judicial discipline appeals)
- Huffman v. Ark. Jud. Discipline & Disability Comm’n, 344 Ark. 274 (Ark. 2001) (Rule 9(B) good-faith/limited grounds for disciplinary action)
- Jud. Discipline & Disability Comm’n v. Simes, 2009 Ark. 543 (Ark. 2009) (prior disciplinary action involving Judge Simes; discussion of sanctions and removal)
- Broadman v. Commission on Judicial Performance, 18 Cal.4th 1079 (Cal. 1998) (California test for bad-faith judicial action in disciplinary context)
- Katz v. Looney, ?, (?) (federal Rule 11/notice related principle cited in concurrence (if included))