193 A.3d 187
Md.2018Background
- Judge Mary C. Reese, a District Court judge since 2006, presided over peace/protective order hearings in Aug 2014 and Feb 2015 that prompted complaints from the Women’s Law Center and two petitioners.
- The February 18, 2015 hearing (Stein v. Lecuyer) involved a 17‑year‑old alleged assault victim (visible bruising); the petitioner was pro se and the respondent was not present.
- Judge Reese asked limited questions, concluded there was insufficient evidence that future abuse was likely, and denied the temporary peace order after a brief (≈3 minute) hearing.
- The Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities found by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Reese committed sanctionable conduct and recommended five days of specialized training, citing violations of Rules 18‑101.1 and 18‑102.5(a).
- Judge Reese filed exceptions; the Commission had excluded her proposed expert witnesses but accepted proffers. Two dissenting Commissioners would have dismissed the charges.
- The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record, rejected the Commission’s finding of sanctionable conduct, and dismissed the matter with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Reese committed "sanctionable conduct" under Md. Rule 18‑401 | Commission/Women’s Law Center: brevity and minimal questioning (19 seconds with the minor; 3‑minute hearing) showed lack of thoroughness, competence, diligence and was prejudicial to administration of justice | Reese: she applied the statute correctly, obtained needed facts, properly exercised judicial discretion, and briefness alone is not misconduct | Court: No sanctionable conduct; decision was an exercise of judicial discretion and not misconduct under Rule 18‑401 |
| Whether Judge Reese violated Rules 18‑101.1 (comply with law) and 18‑102.5(a) (competence/diligence) | Commission: denial after short hearing demonstrated failure to perform duties competently and diligently | Reese: she identified statutory predicates, asked appropriate questions, and reasonably concluded standards were not met | Court: No violation; applying law to facts reasonably does not equal lack of competence or diligence |
| Admissibility and exclusion of proffered expert testimony before the Commission | Commission: experts unnecessary and could undermine Commission functions; exclusion proper | Reese: experts (retired judges) would have aided Commission on judicial standards and norms for peace‑order hearings; exclusion was improper | Court: Did not decide whether exclusion was an abuse of discretion because outcome (no sanctionable conduct) made it unnecessary to resolve; concurrence criticized the procedural handling and would have found exclusion an abuse of discretion |
| Proper remedial authority and appropriate sanctioning (training/mentoring) | Commission: recommended training (five days) as remedy for misconduct | Reese: retraining not warranted because no misconduct; dissenters argued Commission lacks flexible remedial tools for non‑admission remediation | Court: No sanction because no misconduct; concurrence urged rule changes to allow remedial mentoring without court referral |
Key Cases Cited
- Diener v. Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities, 268 Md. 659 (Md. 1973) (describing Commission’s investigatory role and purpose of proceedings)
- In re Lamdin, 404 Md. 631 (Md. 2008) (pattern of undignified/disparaging comments can be sanctionable)
- Coburn v. Coburn, 342 Md. 244 (Md. 1996) (court may consider prior history of abuse in protective/peace order context)
- In re White, 458 Md. 60 (Md. 2018) (jurisdictional limits and procedures for Court of Appeals review of Commission referrals)
- DiLeo v. New Jersey Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, 83 A.3d 11 (N.J. 2014) (legal error may amount to misconduct only if contrary to clear law and egregious/bad faith or part of a pattern)
- Benoit v. Judicial Conduct Board, 487 A.2d 1158 (Me. 1985) (objective standard on when judicial error may constitute misconduct)