In Re Perskie
207 N.J. 275
| N.J. | 2011Background
- Former New Jersey Superior Court judge Steven P. Perskie, admitted to the bar in 1969, retired Feb. 1, 2010.
- ACJC investigated conduct in the Kaye v. Rosefielde case, focusing on conflicts with Siracusa and related recusal issues.
- ACJC charged Canon 1, 2A, 2B, 3C(1) and Rule 1:12-1(f); three counts were substantiated.
- Perskie read a October 2008 letter from Rosefielde before testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee in Oct. 2008.
- ACJC found Count I (recusal) and Count III (post-recourse appearances) were proven; Count II (candor before the Senate) disputed.
- Court independently reviewed whether Perskie’s testimony was deliberate mislead; ultimately censured for Counts I and III and did not find clear and convincing proof for Count II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Perskie deliberately misled the Senate Judiciary Committee (Count II). | ACJC found inconsistencies; Rosefielde’s letter and prior Kaye testimony suggested mislead. | Perskie claims any inaccuracies were honest mistakes; no deliberate mislead. | Count II not proven by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether Counts I and III were proven by clear and convincing evidence. | ACJC proved conflict and improper appearances; failure to recuse and post-recusal conduct. | Perskie admitted some conduct; argued it did not show bias or disqualifying prejudice. | Counts I and III proven by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Appropriate discipline for the proven violations. | ACJC recommended censure for conduct. | Perskie accepted responsibility; court should reflect appropriate discipline. | Perskie censured (and so ordered). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Williams, 169 N.J. 264 (1999) (clear and convincing standard for judicial discipline)
- In re Subryan, 187 N.J. 139 (2006) (de novo review; high standard of proof in discipline cases)
- DeNike v. Cupo, 196 N.J. 502 (2008) (recusal and disqualification standards for judges)
- In re Boggia, 203 N.J. 1 (2010) (establishes separation of judiciary from politics and related standards)
- In re Seaman, 133 N.J. 67 (1993) (elevated standard of proof in disciplinary matters)