In Re Bell
344 S.W.3d 304
| Tenn. | 2011Background
- Bell, a Tennessee General Sessions Judge, faced a Complaint Against Judge Under Code of Judicial Conduct filed July 14, 2008.
- Pleau alleged delay in deciding Pleau I (Pleau I) and lack of timely notice of judgment, causing a time-bar for appeal.
- Pleau II was filed and named Coleman and Merastar; Bell conducted Pleau II without disclosing prior Pleau I findings against Coleman.
- Bell had ex parte communications via attorney Testerman with Pleau while Pleau II was pending, regarding dismissal of the judicial complaint.
- The Court of the Judiciary found Bell violated multiple canons (delay and ex parte communications) and imposed a 90-day suspension, plus deadlines for future cases and ethics training.
- The Supreme Court affirmed some findings, reversed one regarding disclosure of Pleau I findings, and affirmed the sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delay in Pleau I decision | Pleau | Bell claimed compelling reasons; court rejected credibility | Bell violated Canon 3(B)(8) |
| Disqualification from Pleau II due to prior ruling | Pleau sought disclosure of prior ruling against Coleman | Bell argued prior ruling alone not disqualifying | Bell did not violate Canon 3(E)(1) by sole prior ruling; disqualification issue reversed for this point |
| Ex parte communication through Testerman | Pleau alleged improper ex parte contact | Bell contends contact was limited and through counsel | Bell violated Canon 3(B)(7) and Canon 2(A) (ex parte contact) and Canon 3(E)(1) (lack of disclosure) |
| Notice and expansion of charges during investigation | Initial notice covered delay; later charges expanded appropriately | Expansion did not violate statute; notice adequate through formal charges | Counts II and III properly charged; notice not defective |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Williams, 987 S.W.2d 837 (Tenn. 1998) (de novo review standard; credibility determinations)
- State v. Hines, ? (Tenn. 1995) (discusses recusal principles in prior rulings)
- Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 38 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2001) (prior adverse ruling alone not disqualifying)
- In re Murphy, 726 S.W.2d 509 (Tenn. 1987) (high court authority on judicial ethics and public trust)
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1962) (agent principle for communications via counsel)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Aulik, 429 N.W.2d 768 (Wis. 1988) (discipline proportional to gravity of misconduct)