Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Thompson, 2012 Miss. LEXIS 35

Commission filed a multi-count formal complaint against Lee County Justice Court Judge Thompson alleging willful misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; 26 counts, with 11 consolidated and six remaining addressed by an Agreed Statement of Facts; the joint recommendation sought public reprimand, 30-day suspension without pay, a $2,000 fine, and $100 costs; a final determination was prepared after independent review of the record.
Thompson admitted the Agreed Statement of Facts; the Court conducted an independent inquiry and adopted the Commission–Thompson agreement in toto.
Counts describe ex parte communications, interference with orders of another judge, and improper dismissal or handling of various civil and criminal matters in which Thompson had no pending case.
The Court applied Gibson factors to sanction decisions and concluded sanctions were warranted based on a pattern of misconduct over several counts.
The majority upholds sanctions: public reprimand, 30-day suspension without pay, $2,000 fine, and $100 costs, with the public reprimand to be read in open court.
Dissent argues several counts are insufficiently clear to sanction and would remand for further factual development.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether misconduct in multiple counts warrants sanctions.	Commission: six counts constitute prejudicial misconduct.	Thompson: some counts lack clear, sanctionable facts.	Yes; sanctions warranted as to the validated counts.
Whether the Gibson factors support the proposed sanctions.	Commission: factors support public reprimand plus suspension and fines.	Thompson: mitigated factors lessen severity.	Sanctions justified under Gibson factors; remedy adopted.
Whether Count Five (insurance-dismissals) was a sanctionable mistake of law.	Commission: repeated misapplication shows prejudicial conduct.	Thompson: may reflect a mistaken but not willful error.	Count Five sanctionable conduct under applicable precedent.
Whether Counts One, Three, and Six are sufficiently clear for sanctions or require remand.	Commission: clear pattern of misconduct.	Dissent: ambiguity requires remand for development.	Court majority finds sufficient basis; dissent would remand.
Whether to remand for further factual development or proceed to sanctions.	Court should impose sanctions based on agreed facts.	Remand preferable given ambiguities.	Majority adopts agreed facts and sanctions; dissent would remand.

Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Boone, 60 So.3d 172 (Miss.2011) (sets framework for independent inquiry and Gibson factors)
Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. McPhail, 874 So.2d 441 (Miss.2004) (ex parte actions and improper handling; sanctions upheld)
Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Cowart, 936 So.2d 343 (Miss.2006) (improper ex parte contacts and other sanctionable conduct)
Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Roberts, 952 So.2d 934 (Miss.2007) (multiple misconducts; sanctions including suspension and fine)
Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Bradford, 18 So.3d 251 (Miss.2009) (ex parte communications and improper dismissal of cases; sanctions)