Campatelli v. Chief Justice of Trial Court
11 N.E.3d 115
Mass.2014Background
- Patricia Campatelli, elected Suffolk County Register of Probate (took office Jan. 3, 2013), was placed on paid administrative leave (suspension with pay) after allegations of mismanagement and inappropriate conduct.
- Initial December 2013 suspension by Chief Justice Ordóñez was lifted after investigation; a new investigation was appointed Jan. 2014 by Chief Justice Carey and Court Administrator Spence, producing a report finding management and conduct deficiencies.
- On March 5, 2014, Carey, Ordóñez, and Spence notified Campatelli they would refer the matter to the Committee on Professional Responsibility and directed that she remain on paid administrative leave and avoid court personnel.
- Campatelli sued in county court seeking a declaration that only the Supreme Judicial Court (this Court) may suspend a register under G. L. c. 211, § 4, and sought injunctive relief to return to duty; the single justice reported the case to the full court.
- The court considered the complaint as a petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, and addressed whether the three officials had authority to suspend (place on paid leave) the register.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether G. L. c. 211, § 4 vests exclusive authority in the SJC to suspend a register of probate | Campatelli: § 4 (which vests removal power in this Court) also exclusively reserves suspension to this Court, so respondents lacked authority | Respondents: § 4 grants removal but does not preclude other statutory or inherent authority to suspend; other statutes and inherent powers authorize suspension | Held: § 4 does not exclusively preempt suspension; defendants had authority to suspend |
| Whether Court Administrator (G. L. c. 211B, § 9A(xii)) may suspend a register despite a proviso excluding registers from transfer provisions | Campatelli: the proviso applies to entire subsection, so Court Administrator cannot discipline/suspend a register | Spence: proviso applies only to transfer/permanent transfer language; disciplinary authority (including suspension) was intended to remain | Held: Legislative history shows proviso limited to transfers; Court Administrator has authority to discipline and suspend with pay |
| Whether Chief Justice of the Trial Court (G. L. c. 211B, § 9(xxiii)) may suspend under inherent judicial power | Campatelli: § 9(xxiii) cannot override § 4; a register (statutory office) cannot be disciplined by inherent judicial power | Carey: § 9(xxiii) recognizes inherent judicial powers necessary for administration, including suspension to ensure proper administration | Held: CJTC has inherent judicial authority (incorporated by § 9(xxiii)) to suspend a register with pay when necessary for administration |
| Whether Departmental Chief Justice (G. L. c. 211B, § 10(vi)) may suspend a register | Campatelli: § 10(i) limits discipline to disputes first raised between first justice and register; proviso in § 10(vi) bars discipline | Ordóñez: § 10(vi) authorizes discipline (including suspension) and legislative history shows proviso applies to transfers only; § 10(i) does not impose a prerequisite formal dispute for suspension | Held: Departmental chief justice may suspend with pay under § 10(vi); § 10(i) does not bar suspension here |
Key Cases Cited
- McGonigle v. The Governor, 418 Mass. 147 (Mass. 1994) (power to remove implies power to suspend as an incident)
- First Justice of the Bristol Div. v. Clerk‑Magistrate of the Bristol Div., 438 Mass. 387 (Mass. 2003) (inherent judicial authority to supervise court personnel necessary for administration of justice)
- Matter of Powers, 465 Mass. 63 (Mass. 2013) (G. L. c. 211, § 4 vests removal power in the SJC)
- Gray v. Commissioner of Revenue, 422 Mass. 666 (Mass. 1996) (description of inherent judicial powers tied to administration of justice)
- Chief Admin. Justice of the Trial Court v. Labor Relations Comm’n, 404 Mass. 53 (Mass. 1989) (judicial power to control court officers and environment)
- Tobin v. Sheriff of Suffolk County, 377 Mass. 212 (Mass. 1979) (analysis of suspension/removal as related incident powers)