Gormley v. Judicial Conduct Commission
332 S.W.3d 717
| Ky. | 2011Background
- Judge Tamra Gormley, a Kentucky Family Court judge, faced Judicial Conduct Commission findings for three counts of misconduct under the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct.
- Count I arose from an indirect criminal contempt ruling in a February 2008 Scott County hearing, where ex parte information and a summary contempt proceeding were used without proper due process.
- Count II stemmed from events in a Woodford County dissolution/custody case in 2008, where Judge Gormley allegedly denied proper notice, limited defense rights, and engaged in ex parte communications.
- Count V concerned a May 8, 2009 standing order prohibiting modifications of Toyota employee child support until December 31, 2009, which the Commission found to be misconduct.
- The Judicial Conduct Commission suspended Gormley for 45 days without pay and issued public reprimands for Counts I, II, and V; the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SCR 4.020(2) precludes sanctions for good-faith legal errors. | Gormley contends errors were in good faith and not sanctionable. | Commission may sanction egregious errors or bad faith conduct. | Sanctions proper for bad faith/egregious errors; Count I sustained. |
| Whether one egregious/bad-faith error suffices to sanction a judge. | Pattern-of-misconduct or multiple incidents required. | Even a single egregious error can justify sanctions. | Court adopts egregious-error standard; Counts I and II supported. |
| Whether Count II's custody/venue decisions violated due process and evidenced bad faith. | Actions were erroneous but possibly unintentional. | Actions showed bias, lack of notice, and improper forum handling. | Counts II sustained; conduct found to be bad faith and improper. |
| Whether the May 8, 2009 standing order violated access to the courts and constituted misconduct. | Standing order was an administrative measure, not misconduct. | Order denied access and evidence of bad faith; should be sanctionable. | Count V sustained; misconduct found, with corroborated bad-faith timing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hinton v. Judicial Retirement and Removal Commission, 854 S.W.2d 756 (Ky. 1993) (addressed pattern of misconduct and sanctions in absence of pattern)
- Nicholson v. Judicial Retirement & Removal Commission, 573 S.W.2d 642 (Ky. 1978) (pattern of legal errors and due process considerations relate to sanctions)
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1948) (distinction between direct and indirect criminal contempt and due process)
- In re Quirk, 705 So.2d 172 (La. 1997) (adopts 'egregious error' approach to sanctioning judicial misconduct)
- Commonwealth v. Burge, 947 S.W.2d 805 (Ky. 1996) (defines contempt and related court powers for sanction purposes)