Judicial Conduct Commission v. Hagar, 2014 ND 33

Richard L. Hagar, a North Central Judicial District judge since 2007, was previously censured by the North Dakota Supreme Court in 2012 for delays in deciding 12 cases and submitted a plan to cure docket delays.
Eight days after the 2012 censure he presided over a two-day divorce trial (Block v. Block); the decision was issued nearly ten months after trial.
The Block plaintiff complained; the Judicial Conduct Commission charged Hagar with violations of former Canons 3(B)(1) and 3(B)(8) and, because conduct spanned the July 1, 2012 code change, current Rules 2.7 and 2.5(A).
A hearing was held; the Commission found Hagar violated the cited provisions for failure to hear and promptly decide matters and recommended a one-month suspension and assessment of costs.
Hagar admitted he could not excuse the delay but disputed aspects of the merits of his Block decision; the Court declined to consider the decision’s substantive correctness for disciplinary purposes.
The Supreme Court concluded the Commission’s findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence and imposed a one‑month suspension without pay and taxed costs/attorney fees of $3,710.49.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hagar violated the Code/Rules by failing to hear and promptly decide matters	Commission: Hagar’s ~10‑month post‑trial delay in Block violated former Canons 3(B)(1), 3(B)(8) and current Rules 2.7, 2.5(A)	Hagar: Largely defended substantive rulings in Block and offered no excuse for delay; conceded failure to meet promptness standards	Held: Clear and convincing evidence of violations of former Canons 3(B)(1), 3(B)(8) and Rules 2.7, 2.5(A) (finding adopted)
Appropriate sanction for repeated delay after prior censure	Commission: One‑month suspension and payment of costs warranted to deter repeat misconduct	Hagar: Argued suspension unduly burdens colleagues and citizens; offered no alternative sanction	Held: One‑month suspension without pay beginning April 1, 2014, and assessment of $3,710.49 in costs/fees; suspension justified given prior censure, harm to litigant, and need for meaningful discipline

Judicial Conduct Comm’n v. Hagar, 810 N.W.2d 338 (N.D. 2012) (prior censure for docket delays and adopted corrective plan)
McGuire v. Judicial Conduct Comm’n, 685 N.W.2d 748 (N.D. 2004) (factors for judicial discipline; standard of review)
Judicial Qualifications Comm’n v. Cieminski, 270 N.W.2d 321 (N.D. 1978) (definition of "willfully" in judicial discipline)
Judicial Qualifications Comm’n v. Cieminski, 326 N.W.2d 883 (N.D. 1982) (suspension as available sanction)
Disciplinary Board v. Lucas, 789 N.W.2d 73 (N.D. 2010) (discipline must be meaningful, not "empty noise")
Disciplinary Board v. Larson, 512 N.W.2d 454 (N.D. 1994) (importance of effective disciplinary sanctions)