Judicial Conduct Commission v. Corwin
2014 ND 50
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Judge Wickham Corwin, a district judge elected in 2008, faced Commission disciplinary proceedings for conduct toward a female court reporter beginning in 2010.
- After an emergency-room incident in May 2010, Corwin developed closer contact with the reporter; on July 15, 2010 he invited her to his home, kissed her after she rejected a sexual proposition.
- The reporter repeatedly told Corwin she did not want a personal relationship; Corwin continued to seek meetings outside work, asked her to shop and have lunch, and made repeated contacts; she emailed him explicitly to stop.
- Corwin later complained about her job performance to court administrators and sought reassignment; the presiding judge eventually reassigned the reporter and directed Corwin to avoid contact.
- The Judicial Conduct Commission found violations of Canons 3(C)(2) (conduct perceivable as sexual harassment) and 3(C)(1) (administrative bias), and recommended a two-month suspension without pay and costs; the Supreme Court reviewed de novo and imposed a one-month suspension without pay and assessed $11,958.56 in costs, effective December 1, 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Corwin violated Canon 3(C)(2) (must not engage in conduct reasonably perceived as sexual harassment) | Commission: Corwin persisted after clear refusals; his repeated propositions, invitations, nonwork contacts, and retaliation created conduct that a reasonable person could perceive as sexual harassment | Corwin: Post‑July 15 there was no sexual touching, no sexually explicit remarks, only attempts to restore an amicable working relationship; expert testimony on statutory harassment law was relevant | Held: Clear and convincing evidence Corwin engaged in conduct reasonably perceived as sexual harassment; expert statutory definitions unnecessary because Policy 119 and the Canon sufficed |
| Whether Corwin violated Canon 3(C)(1) (discharge administrative duties without bias) | Commission: After rejection, Corwin treated the reporter disparately, sought reassignment/discipline, and complained to administrators — showing bias based on personal interest | Corwin: Argued communications were about workplace relations and not discriminatory or biased; presiding judge testified Corwin did not seek discipline | Held: Clear and convincing evidence Corwin acted with bias/prejudice in administrative matters toward the reporter |
| Admissibility/relevance of expert testimony on sexual harassment law | Commission: Canon standard is whether conduct could reasonably be perceived as sexual harassment; statutory definitions under Policy 119 govern workplace expectations; expert on federal/state law not necessary | Corwin: Sought to present expert testimony to define sexual harassment under federal/state law | Held: Expert testimony on statutory sexual‑harassment law was unnecessary and properly excluded; disciplinary proceedings are not civil or criminal and the Canon uses a reasonable‑perception standard |
| Appropriate sanction for violations | Commission recommended two months suspension without pay and costs | Corwin emphasized lack of prior discipline, long service, cooperation, counseling, and claimed misunderstanding; announced not to seek reelection | Held: Considering factors (pattern over 18 months, impact on reporter, lesser pervasiveness than some prior cases, mitigation), Court ordered one month suspension without pay and assessed costs of $11,958.56 |
Key Cases Cited
- Judicial Conduct Comm’n v. McGuire, 685 N.W.2d 748 (N.D. 2004) (standard for disciplinary review and prior two‑month suspension for sexually boorish behavior)
- Judicial Conduct Comm’n v. Hoffman, 595 N.W.2d 592 (N.D. 1999) (de novo review of Commission findings)
- Judicial Conduct Comm’n v. Grenz, 534 N.W.2d 816 (N.D. 1995) (deference to hearing body's witness‑demeanor observations)
- Judicial Qualifications Comm’n v. Schirado, 364 N.W.2d 50 (N.D. 1985) (requirement charges be proven by clear and convincing evidence)
- Judicial Qualifications Comm’n v. Cieminski, 270 N.W.2d 321 (N.D. 1978) (definition of "willfully" and standards in judicial disciplinary proceedings)