In Re the Disciplinary Matter Involving a District Court Judge
392 P.3d 480
| Alaska | 2017Background
- A state district court judge previously faced discipline; the Alaska Judicial Council then recommended he not be retained.
- The judge, advised by counsel, declined to run a retention campaign. A friend of his wife secretly funded an independent group, “Friends of [the Judge],” which ran mailers, billboards, social media ads, and a website supporting retention.
- The judge did not know about the campaign, had no control over messaging, and only consented to an informal photograph taken by the campaign agent; he first learned of the mailer and website days before the election and learned of a social-media “witch hunt” image only after the election.
- The Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct investigated and concluded the campaign’s materials implied endorsements and were misleading; the Commission found the judge knew or should have known and failed to correct the statements.
- The Commission issued an informal private admonishment, requiring the judge to correct the public record; the judge sought review in the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court granted review, applied de novo standards, and considered whether a judge has a duty to publicly address or repudiate statements by independent supporters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Supreme Court may review an informal private admonishment by the Commission | Commission: informal admonishments are not subject to this Court’s review | Judge: Court may review as final administrative action affecting judiciary | Court: May review such admonishments upon timely request; exercise review sparingly |
| Whether the Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to publicly correct independent third‑party campaign statements that imply endorsements | Commission: Judge must publicly address statements the public reasonably associates with him to avoid appearance of impropriety | Judge: No duty to correct statements by independent groups not under his control; Canon 5 uses permissive language (“may”) | Court: No general duty; correction is permissive but limited duty may arise when failure to act creates an appearance of impropriety; apply objective Canon 2 test |
| Whether judge violated Canons by failing to correct the mailer and website quotes implying endorsements | Commission: Quotes created false endorsements; judge knew or should have known and failed to act | Judge: Materials were clearly labeled as paid for by independent group; he lacked knowledge and control | Court: Rejected violation — judge had no prior knowledge or control; disclaimer made source clear; no appearance of impropriety |
| Whether judge violated Canons by failing to repudiate the social‑media “witch hunt” image | Commission: Image was undignified and implied impropriety needing correction | Judge: He did not learn of the image until after the election and had no control | Court: No violation — judge lacked knowledge prior to election and no reasonable expectation he should have monitored or prevented it |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Alaska Bar Ass'n, 91 P.3d 271 (Alaska 2004) (reviewability of final administrative grievance-closing decisions)
- In re a Judge (Judge II), 822 P.2d 1333 (Alaska 1991) (standards for judicial-discipline review)
- In re Cummings, 211 P.3d 1136 (Alaska 2009) (de novo review in judicial discipline)
- In re Johnstone, 2 P.3d 1226 (Alaska 2000) (Canon 2 objective test for appearance of impropriety)
- In re Hanson, 532 P.2d 303 (Alaska 1975) (supreme court authority over judicial discipline)