Judicial Conduct Commission v. Hagar
891 N.W.2d 735
N.D.2017Background
- Richard L. Hagar, a North Dakota district court judge since 2007, faced multiple disciplinary proceedings for failing to timely decide assigned matters.
- He was previously censured (2012) and suspended one month without pay (2014) for similar failures to issue decisions and for not meeting docket‑currency standards.
- In 2015 the Judicial Conduct Commission charged Hagar with willful violations of N.D. Code Jud. Conduct Rules 2.5 (competence, diligence, cooperation) and 2.7 (duty to hear and decide matters) based on seven cases from 2014.
- Hearing panel found docket‑currency standards were exceeded in five of seven cases; Hagar failed to respond to the presiding judge’s warnings and did not implement his post‑censure docket plan.
- Specific problematic matters included: Aberle v. Aberle (decision delayed ~13 months after trial) and Ballou v. Platz (no action on an ex parte return‑of‑child application).
- The Commission recommended a three‑month suspension, education, docket cure within 90 days, Odyssey training, and assessment of disciplinary costs; the Supreme Court adopted the suspension and costs but declined the education requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hagar willfully violated Rules 2.5 and 2.7 by failing to timely decide assigned matters | Commission: Hagar repeatedly exceeded docket‑currency standards, ignored presiding judge’s warnings, and failed to cooperate or implement his plan | Hagar: Exceeded standards but not willful; heavy workload and standards are arbitrary; he missed some matters unintentionally | Court: Clear and convincing evidence of willful violations of Rules 2.5 and 2.7; pattern of similar misconduct established |
| Whether failure to act on ex parte motion in Ballou constituted a rule violation | Commission: Inaction on urgent ex parte application harmed parties and warranted discipline | Hagar: Claimed he simply "didn’t get to it" and had no excuse | Court: Inaction amounted to breach of duties; supports sanction |
| Whether prior discipline and claimed mitigation (workload, service, drug court involvement) reduce sanction severity | Commission: Prior discipline and repeated misconduct are aggravating; prior sanctions were ineffective | Hagar: Heavy caseload, long service, and community work are mitigating | Court: Mitigating factors considered but outweighed by pattern and recurrence; stronger sanction required |
| Appropriate sanction for repeated failures to decide cases | Commission: Three‑month suspension, training, docket cure, and costs | Hagar: Recommended sanction too severe given mitigation | Court: Adopted three‑month suspension without pay, allowed temporary replacement, assessed $10,118.67 in costs; declined mandatory National Judicial College course |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Action Against Hagar, 810 N.W.2d 338 (N.D. 2012) (censure and adopted consent plan following docket delays)
- In re Disciplinary Action Against Hagar, 842 N.W.2d 873 (N.D. 2014) (one‑month suspension for failure to issue timely divorce decision)
- McGuire, 685 N.W.2d 748 (N.D. 2004) (standard of review and factors for judicial discipline)
- Judicial Qualifications Comm’n v. Cieminski, 270 N.W.2d 321 (N.D. 1978) (definition of "willfully" in disciplinary context)
- Schirado, 364 N.W.2d 50 (N.D. 1985) (clear and convincing evidence requirement and de novo review with due weight to hearing body)