*1 680 of Bonin.
In the Matter of the crimes to a confession which amounted May 8 court, May it seems that lack competence likely open doubt. reasonable have been harmless a beyond would Order affirmed. of Robert M. Bonin. the Matter 1978. 5-7, 9, 12-14, 20, Suffolk. July June & Kaplan, Wilkins, Present: Quirico, Abrams, Braucher, JJ. Court, inferior courts. Con- Supreme Superintendence Judge. Judicial Law, employment. Public Judge, stitutional of the of the Chief by the wife Receipt of a leased automobile Justice legal a formerly had been corporation from which Superior Court recep- for a by corporation payment client of the Chief Justice tion and dinner for the Chief Justice that posi- appointment after his alone, not, of the Code of constitute violations standing did tion Judi- however, [695]; (2) Rule 3:17 cial Conduct or Justice’s S.J.C. presi- corporation’s appointing a relative subsequent conduct appointment and his office of the Chief dent to a position services secretarial performed gratuitous who had of two secretaries were they and the Chief corporation for the while for him and constituted of the Commonwealth Attorney General employed 2 the Conduct Canon of Code (B) violations of Canon 3:17 (2) Rule [696]. S.J.C. circumstances, exercise a judge that a requirement neither In the reflect on may in activities engaging of self-restraint measure any serious to do so raised for his failure nor a sanction impartiality to the United Amendment First or Fourteenth question under of the Constitution provisions corresponding States Constitution the Commonwealth. [709-710] charges against evidentiary hearings
Following it Court, that was of this court concluded majority Superior meeting at a before his attendance knew proved of criminal in the interest to raise funds was intended and that Court before pending certain cases defendants in at the on the cases comment partisan there would likely it was J., joined meeting. [705] Abrams, Quirico, J., J., and concurring. Braucher, J., concurring; Wilkins, *2 on Following evidentiary hearings charges against Chief Justice Court, that, Superior attending meeting this court concluded before a part rally that was intended at least in as a in the interest of partisan Court, pending Superior defendants in certain in the criminal cases Chief had to infer that the touch on good meeting reason would Justice court, in pending negligent matters his Chief Justice point ignoring brought almost to wilfulness in information to his attention about the character of the in meeting, attending and that (B) in these circumstances he violated Canons and 5 (A) (2). Code Conduct and Rule 3:17 [705-707] Judicial S.J.C. Court, proceeding against Superior a Chief it was not in proved knowingly Chief made false statements a press release in testimony deposition sought or under oath on or that he to have an assistant make a statement which he knew would be false materially misleading. J., J., [710-711] Braucher, Quirico, concurring; J., by joined J., concurring. Wilkins, Abrams, filed Court Information Supreme May Judicial 4, 1978. Robert ir W. Meserve Mark L. Coun- Designated Wolf, sel.
Paul R. ir David for the Sugarman Sargent respondent. J. Winsor, Hamilton, Ernest Reinstein, C. Har- James John A. 6- Raker David vey Silverglate, Rosenberg, Jeanne Civil Massachusetts, curiae, Liberties Union of amicus sub- mitted a brief.
By Bonin, the Court. Robert M. now Chief Court was admitted to the bar (Chief Justice), of this in Commonwealth 1954. He the next as a spent year fellow and school, student at a fol- teaching law graduate lowed three of active with the by years Advocate duty Judge General’s of the United States After Corps Army. complet- research, service he was ing military employed legal for about one and one-half writing editing years, thereafter he law, first as an law practiced a employee firm, and later as a in firm formed him and an partner 1975, associate. That continued until when he was January, First Assistant General for the Com- appointed Attorney 2, 1977, monwealth. He until March occupied position when he was to his Prior to his appointed present position. as Chief he was
appointment engaged part-time basis in at two law schools in Boston area. teaching
Some time
1977 the Committee on
Responsi-
established
bility
3:17,
Rule
(Committee),
by S.J.C.
amended,
As the Committee’s the fact of investigation progressed, the as well as the investigation nature and of some identity of the areas under became the com- investigation subject ment in news occurred, the media and This elsewhere. not- the Rule 3:17 372 withstanding provisions (2), S.J.C. “ Mass. 925 Committee (1977), shall proceedings [a]ll be confidential and that, on conditionally privileged except request any whom have been judge against proceedings initiated, such may Committee conduct proceedings No such was filed with the Committee publicly.” request This does court not attribute responsi- Justice. news comments media bility any participants and recognizes investigation, public knowledge 1 amended, Supreme (2), provides Court Rule 3:17 in part: Judicial “ motion, On by any its own or on the Committee complaint person, shall inquire investigate alleged physical incapacity into and or mental office, any allegations judge; of misconduct maladministration wil duties, ful or failure persistent perform intemperance habitual or other brings judicial conduct prejudicial justice the administration violate disrepute; any alleged may office into and act which the Code of (Rule 3:25).” Conduct Judicial Mass. Matter of
In the Bonin. and speculation of the made the fact investigation public circumstances. comment inevitable in the 11, 1978, days events of following preceding On April to the Chief below, described this court wrote to be himself all that he remove from voluntarily judi- suggesting final of then cial duties until resolution and administrative mer- no on the implying judgment existing allegations, its of On the next day any allegations. Jus- declining tice wrote to this court respectfully suspend therefor. He asked himself reasons voluntarily stating an this court him and give attorneys opportunity 12, 1978, this be heard before further. On proceeding April him that it would hear him his attorneys court informed on be limited and that the would following day, hearing to the “whether without merits of any question regard under Court’s matter which now consideration this interest, Committee Responsibility, public Court effective administration including in the fair confidence administration justice public was held as sched- requires [your] hearing suspension.” uled, court, and thereafter this entered fur- an order until temporarily enjoining court, ther of this from the of all order performance judicial *4 and functions as Chief of administrative the Superior date. The order has continued to this Court.
As a result of its
the Committee concluded
investigation
should be instituted
the
that formal
against
proceedings
20, 1978,
and
it caused a written
Chief
on
Justice,
April
be served on him advis-
“Notice of Formal
to
Proceedings”
into
him of the institution of the
inquire
ing
proceedings
him.2
forth the
against
charges,
setting
charges
following provision of the
procedure
This
was in accordance with the
adopted by the Com
Responsibility
Rules
the Committee on
as
pursuant
(2),
this court
Rule 3:17
approved by
mittee and
S.J.C.
amended,
Proceedings.
“Rule
On the Committee filed a April motion with a single this court justice material asking following filed, be made a public: portion (a) preliminary report with the 13, Committee its on 1978, counsel March by the “Notice of Formal (b) which had been Proceedings” 20, served on the Chief on 1978. The April only part which the Committee asked be preliminary report made was that “to matters which were public in- relating and not found vestigated by Committee to warrant fur- ther It did action.” thus seek disclosure of the part which were described in report relating charges “Notice of Formal The Committee also asked Proceedings.” authorized, discretion, that it at its to turn over At- General certain material one torney of its relating phase The motion was heard investigation. by single justice 21, 1978, and allowed on April April 3, 1978, On full May court single justice reported for its consideration decision the question “[wjhether the formal returned the Committee charges against 20, 1978, Bonin on shall be entered in the office Clerk of the Court for the Supreme Judicial Commonwealth, and there as treated an information to be heard, decided and the Full Court.” The disposed thus before the full court question reported argued 4,1978, and May on that full court entered an day order affirmative. The question order answering pro- vided further file his answer or other 12, 1978, thereto on or before and that hear- pleadings May on the Information commence before the full court not ings later than 1978. The answer was filed on required June 12, 1978. May The Information and answer are appended A B. the full before court Appendices Hearings 5, the started on of evidence was com- presentation June *5 the of proceedings inquire charges. institution formal into the ...(b) The language charges against judge Notice shall state in concise the the in- cluding any references sections Code of Conduct which Judicial violated, judge the is charged having alleged upon and the facts which such charges are based.” Bonin.
In the Matter of on 14, and were heard final pleted arguments June June 20, Pleadings.
Summary of in this Informa- The consist the of pleadings proceeding answer tion and thereto. The Information the respondent’s the “Notice Formal which is based the Proceedings” be caused to served on the Committee on April respondent includes nine 1978. It numbered separately charges conduct Each respondent. by charge alleged improper several numbered factual consists of paragraphs allega- tions followed concluding paragraph charging facts reason violated one alleged respondent 3:17, amended, more of Rule as the provisions S.J.C. Rule 3:25,
Mass. 925 or of (1977), S.J.C. a “Code of Conduct.” (1972), prescribed The answered each numbered charge separate- respondent and the answers thereto. We summarize ly. charges It to state at this First charge. may helpful point attendance respondent’s first six stem from charges Street Church at the Arlington gathering (meeting) 5, 1978. all six Boston on It alleged charges which was for the tickets purchased meeting respondent Committee, he in for the benefit of the Boston/Boise and that fact attended the principal speaker meeting, “Sex in Mas- was whose was and Politics Gore Vidal subject admits these The respondent sachusetts.” allegations contained, six in which are and he adds that all they charges admission was five dollars meeting per price person. continued with allegations. first charge following informed,
Before the respondent attending known knew that the have proceeds should benefit intended be used for the part ticket sales were criminal cases in a of twenty-four of the defendants group were then which he knew Revere cases) pending (the defense of Court, the defendants in their assist *6 In the Matter of Bonin. such cases and assist witnesses and others involved in the cases.
The denies these respondent allegations.
Second charge. Before the re- attending meeting knew or spondent should have known that the Revere cases would be or were be discussed. Those and other likely criminal cases which the knew be heard respondent might Court were discussed in his Superior and presence, the discussion included statements the merits of concerning cases, criticism of the administration of in rela- justice tion to cases, those of doubt the de- whether expressions fendants could fair receive a trial.
The denies these He respondent allegations. admits of what was said at the accuracy transcripts meeting, but he not adds that it is that he heard alleged “discus- any sion” at the and that his sole meeting, purpose attending towas hear Vidal. Gore
Third charge. Statements were made at the meeting the respondent’s presence status merits concerning cases, of the Revere them moti- denouncing improperly vated, it and indicating that was that the defend- unlikely ants the cases could or would receive a fair trial. It was stated that of the ticket sales would be used proceeds for the benefit of the defendants largely and others involved in the Revere cases. There were also statements the status and merits criminal other matters which the respondent knew might heard Court. The respondent not did leave the time until its conclusion. meeting any admits respondent accuracy transcripts that he did not meeting acknowledges leave before its it conclusion. He notes that again “that the remarks and of all of alleged statements understood,” were speakers heard and specifically him denies that he heard remarks which any imposed upon leave He states that “a any duty meeting. reading the entire event does reveal transcript any materi- al that under the law have him would imposed upon any to leave.” duty three the first After
Fourth charge. incorporating that the met it is further alleged respondent charges, in a and engaged at the end the meeting Gore Vidal this *7 him, that was likely with knowing conversation friendly the that this would to and knowing give be photographed of at the that he indorsed the criticism meeting appearance that he indorsed the raising the of and administration justice in the Revere for the benefit of the defendants funds and conversation with cases. The meeting respondent’s Vidal were and publicized. photographed to to in addition his answer allega-
The the respondent, con- in the first three admits his and meeting tions charges, it was photographed pub- versation Vidal that He licized. He denies the additional answers allegations. to the fun- further that “this basic charge repugnant damental rights person.” any charge. On the stated April respondent
Fifth that to the he no in- under oath before made meeting going about the nature the Boston/Boise Committee and quiry committee funds was advised that would use raised by the for in- the benefit of the defendants others meeting cases, there no volved Revere that was reference therefrom, the the use of the about funds derived meeting to that no to the Revere cases the prior there was reference Reeves, one Thomas and that the remark only remarks by to the cases pertained age alleged Reeves about victims. The above statements were ma- respondent conducted, to the then and he being terial investigation and, fact, knew were false. should have known that they 7, 1978, release On issued a press April respondent he not learn of the intended use the funds that did stating from until the after meeting meeting. derived day fact, and, in that The should have known knew respondent the statement was false. denies to the false testimony respondent
As alleged to he statement knew false that he made any of his the best recollec- testified faith says good tian. As release he admits it press but denies issuing statement in the release was false. any Sixth charge. After the first three incorporating charges, it is further knew before he alleged respondent at- 5, 1978, tended the that his meeting April administrative assistant, Orfanello, Francis X. him in had advised sub- stance and effect would be proceeds meeting used the defense of defendants the Revere cases. On 6, 1978, the have Mr. respondent sought Orfanello make a false statement the effect misleading that he told had that the “for respondent only gays or gay people.” addition his answer the first respondent,
three denies all charges, sixth allegations charge.
Seventh note ninth charge. We that the seventh through are unrelated the first six. charges They allege improper conduct the as Chief of the by respondent Superior in Court to or several matters the relating Richard involving Insurance Inc. and several of Conboy Agency, (Conboy), J. its officers and directors. The became Chief of the respondent Superior 7, Court March 1977. Thereafter for a Conboy paid $385 for 7, 1977, held March reception and respondent $1,700 for 10, a dinner for the on March given respondent 1977, $1,800 1977. In over for the rental an Conboy paid in automobile leased the name of the wife and respondent’s used and his wife. in- business respondent Conboy’s cludes the sale of life insurance multiple employer group in Massachusetts and elsewhere. attorneys The for the respondent admits that Conboy paid recep- tion or and dinner but denies that con- Conboy anyone nected for was listed as a host either Conboy sponsor event. He admits the about the automobile but allegations “the individual officials of states that cost was charged Conboy.” The the seventh are
Eighth charge. allegations charge added reference and are following incorporated by of Bonin. In the Matter for the leased by Conboy The car rental payments
thereto. as compen- by Conboy treated ultimately automobile were officials. two other Conboy to Martin and Kelley sation J. In director Conboy. August, an officer and Kelley stepsister appointed Kelley’s (half respondent of the in the office as a secretary sister) Court. allegations says The admits these respondent on the basis half made strictly sister was appointment of merit.
Ninth seventh charge. allegations eighth and the are are reference following incorporated charges the First added thereto. Assistant While respondent General, Pauline Dionne Mastronardi Mary Attorney Stanton were there as secretaries and worked for employed and under of the respondent. During supervision rendered services period respondent legal Conboy an affiliated (the Conboy matter) corporation $25,000 $1,000 the rate of month. dur- per received Also Mastronardi and Stanton ing secreta- period performed rial connection with the services respondent’s representa- tion of and an the office of the Conboy, attorney working under General and Attorney respondent’s supervision his assistant services matter. performed Conboy nor Neither the two secretaries were attorney compen- for their sated services matter. Conboy August, secretaries, Stanton, the two Mastronardi and were *9 in office the Chief as secretaries appointed Court. Superior admits but allegations these states respondent work in done volun- three was by persons question He basis. states further that two secretaries were tary of the the office the Chief appointed positions of merit. Court the basis strictly Discussion
Findings, and Conclusion. Most of the facts are admitted were objective or alleged proved evidence. The by facts issue relate to principal such as what knew or questions should times, have known critical connection what there was between one admitted fact and another. We state and dis- cuss the facts as we find them under two separate headings: (A) Charges Concerning Relationship Justice’s Client, with a Former Related to the (B) Charges Events at the Street Church on Arlington 1978. The facts so are stated established a fair by preponderance evidence, and are the entire court. Some joined would make the additional indicated findings Justices their separate opinions.
A. Charges Concerning Relationship Justice’s with a Former Client. Fact.
Findings of 1. While the First At- Assistant respondent serving General, he services for torney the Richard performed legal Insurance Inc. its affiliate Conboy Agency, (Conboy), J. Administrators, Inc., Northeast and two officers of Conboy, connection an antitrust case in the United pending Court, States District District Massachusetts.
2. The First while Assistant Gener- respondent, Attorney al, $1,000 received each month his services in the anti- case, $25,000, trust the time he served as totally, during First Assistant General. Attorney business life includes insurance Conboy’s selling group in Massachusetts and elsewhere. About attorneys are insured lawyers Conboy. persons through director, treasurer, 4. Martin Kelley president J. and one of the stockholders of Roberta Conboy. Downey ais half sister of have a close rela- (Downey) Kelley. They his half sister’s interest in tionship. Kelley brought obtaining to the he was attention while employment respondent *10 Mass. of Bonin.
In the Matter General. The respondent First Assistant Attorney as serving hired, was hired she be and Downey recommended that office. General’s work the torts division Attorney and Mary 5. Pauline Dionne Mastronardi (Mastronardi) in the office of the worked as secretaries Stanton (Stanton) of the re- for and under the direction General Attorney Mastronardi and Stanton While so spondent. employed, in connec- secretarial services for the respondent performed tion antitrust suit. Neither was compen- Conboy or for its those sated by respondent Conboy (or affiliate) services. Some these secretarial services were performed hours for and Stanton which Mastronardi during working were the Commonwealth. compensated by First Assist- a the time while was During portion General, ant used the services an Attorney respondent assistant who was for attorney general, working specifically him, in of a memorandum be filed preparation part antitrust case. The assistant Conboy general attorney some these services normal performed during working not or hours. She was offered compensated compensation by its The respondent Conboy (or affiliate). Attorney General did authorize the use the assistant respondent on this matter. The General rule private had a Attorney assistant against attorneys general engaging private prac- tice, and the as First Assistant respondent General Attorney assigned rule. The responsibility enforcing General had made an this rule con- Attorney exception nection with the its respondent’s representation Conboy, affiliate, and officers antitrust case. Federal 7, 1977,
7. On March was held at the State reception in of House as Chief following respondent swearing Court. paid Conboy subsequently $385, the cost of the and treated representing reception, 10, 1977, On March as a business payment expense. recep- in honor tion and dinner was of the Chief given Justice. if and his
invitations were
General
Attorney
printed
hostess,
wife were the host and
but the
General
Attorney
did
know who was
the function. Conboy
paying
*11
692 of In the Matter Bonin. in in ex- the cost of the and dinner an amount paid reception $1,700 a business ex- cess of and treated that amount as pense. 1977, From Conboy paid
8. March through September, $1,800 in for the of a Ford LTD automobile excess rental Chief in the name of the Chief wife. The leased Justice’s used the vehicle. Conboy and his wife Initially, Justice deductible, later, but advice treated the as tax payments accountant, its records show the its revised payments other officers. The as income and two Kelley Conboy of these Chief considered propriety payments Justice Conduct before were made. under the Code they or affiliate, no officers There is indication that its Conboy, Chief Court. The had cases any pending Superior Jus- Executive tice filed a with the report Secretary Jus- 1978, 15, on or disclosing tices of this court before April as a rental payments gift.
9. In the Chief appointed Downey, August, Justice in office of the Chief sister, as a half Kelley’s secretary hired at an annual Court. She was Justice $2,000 she been as a sec- almost than had higher paid salary office. at the General’s Attorney retary Mastro- 10. Chief August, appointed in the office nardi and Stanton secretaries Court. Each was hired at an annual of the Superior received in $1,000 than she had higher salary approximately General’s office. the Attorney at the Attorney other individuals employed Although in employment General’s office asked hired Court, Downey, only the Superior no Mastronardi, There is indication any and Stanton. not secretary. of these individuals is a competent
Discussion. Conduct, 359 the Code Canon (C) (4) Judicial or member fami- his that a Mass. 848 states judge (1972), a except household should accept gift his ly residing circumstance, certain stated circumstances. One such set forth in Canon of a permits (C) (4) (c), receipt gift by or member of his house- judge residing family hold “if the donor is or other whose inter- party person ests him, and, have come are come before if its likely $100, value exceeds it in the same manner judge reports as he reports compensation Canon 6C.”3 The Chief Jus- *12 tice made such on or 15, 1978, a before report with April to the respect officers, made on payments its by Conboy, motor the vehicle lease.
Thus a receive may a a value of more judge gift having than but must However, $100 the report gift. propriety of such a not is gift and criticism beyond scrutiny be- simply it not cause is forbidden Canon 5 and is (C) reported. activities, all his a should not judge avoid only impropriety but also he should avoid the of appearance impropriety.
Canon
In a proceeding a made concerning gift before the Code of Conduct was effective in Commonwealth, this Judicial we censured a him to judge, $5,000 ordered to the pay Commonwealth as of costs where the proceedings, judge received of $4,000 a from gift an individual after he made of a officer inquiry a prosecuting case concerning pending against individual. Matter 366 11 Mass. Morrissey, of We concluded that the (1974). conduct judge’s constituted “a careless of the con- disregard” a requirement judge’s duct avoid even the of Id. appearance at 16. impropriety. (C), Canon 6 (1972), Mass. 852 to on or requires judge “report before 15 of year, respect previous each year, calendar date, place, and nature of any activity for which he compen received sation, and the name of the payor and the amount of compensation so report received.” The should be filed with the Secretary Executive Supreme public Court as a document. Justices Judicial of drafters the Code of Conduct adopted by Judicial Association, American Bar which our Code Judi- based, cial Conduct concluded that disclosure of public in value would gifts exceeding $100 adherence encourage principle avoiding any appearance impropriety. Thode, E.
tice inference of conduct other (and by judicial judges) to influence on based favoritism. It did subject personal in confidence and promote “public integrity impartiali- Moreover, of the Canon 2 ty judiciary.” appoint- (A). of in ment these could circumstances Downey reasonably create the that the Chief in “fa- impression engaged Justice in voritism” the exercise of his to make power appoint- ments, to the of direction Canon 3 acting contrary (B) (4).4
The
of Mastronardi and Stanton as-secre-
appointment
taries
the office of the
of
Chief
Court
was,
itself, not
no
There is
improper.
suggestion
were not
to
the duties of their
they
competent
perform
posi-
When, however,
tions.
Mastro-
appointed
Stanton,
nardi and
he knew that
had
they
performed
services for him and
for
secretarial
gratuitous
indirectly
provides
part:
judge]
4Canon 3
Conboy’s payment recep- tion and the cost the dinner for the Chief may have been to the Chief gifts itself Conboy regarded Justice. the expenses as tax deductible These expenditures. expendi- tures were made sincere Chief appreciation However, services as counsel for the fact Conboy. Justice’s these made Conboy combined payments, Chief reward subsequent employment higher Justice’s salaries half sister two who had Kelley’s persons case, worked did not gratuitously antitrust Conboy promote confidence “public integrity impartiali- Canon 2 ty judiciary.” These (A). appointments created the “in officers impression Conboy’s were to influence special position Canon [the Justice].” (B). To deal with particular charges: *14 The seventh on based the claim the charge receipt of the of the leased automobile and gift the payment by of of Conboy cost State House and of the reception 2, dinner were violations of Canon Canon 2 and (B), S.J.C. events, Rule 3:17 These alone, are viola- (2). standing tions as but must viewed in relation to alleged, also they and ninth eighth charges.
The concerns of eighth charge appointment Downey as a in the office of the Chief of the secretary Court. It cites Canon 3 the exercise Superior (B), concerning merit; of a on the basis of judge’s appointing power solely 2, Canon the avoidance of or the concerning impropriety of and Rule con- appearance 3:17 impropriety; (2), S.J.C. misconduct in office and conduct cerning prejudicial administration in- office justice brings judicial of the disrepute. appointment Downey, light and the Conboy made for events gift payments by Conboy held in honor, the Chief was a violation as alleged Justice’s in the eighth charge.
The ninth concerns the of Mastro- charge appointment nardi and Stanton as secretaries in the office Court. This also rested charge 2, violations of Canon 3 alleged Canon Rule (B), S.J.C. 3:17 (2). light Conboy gift Conboy’s payments for events held in honor, in the light Justice’s rendering services uncompensated Conboy antitrust matter Stanton, Mastronardi and in light the apparent treatment preferential Mastronardi given and Stanton over other for applicants appointments (except Downey), appointments were viola- tions as in the ninth alleged charge. Related to the B. Charges Events at the Street Arlington Church on April Fact.
Findings of 1. In December, the Boston/Boise Committee (committee) as “a committee organized outrage the recent of 24 indictments sex acts handling alleged between men in the Boston The committee boys area.” sponsored event at Street fund-raising Arlington Church on 5, 1978, Vidal, Wednesday, with Gore author, noted as featured Before the event speaker. committee had conferred with for some of the attorneys cases, defendants criminal sometimes referred *15 In the Matter of Bonin. $25,000
“the Revere cases.” The had attorneys budgeted of attitudes of the National survey prospective jurors by 27,1978, On March a co-chairman of the com- Jury Project. mittee wrote one of the that “we will a con- make attorneys tribution from to our General Fund after April shortly $25,000 toward the total cost indicated in the help budget to submitted me forwarded by by you.” NJP 2, 1978, 2. On the Boston Globe Sunday, printed brief announcement: “Author Gore will ‘Sex Vidal discuss and Politics Massachusetts’ at the Wednesday evening Street Church. Admission is the funds will Arlington $5 be used to benefit the Committee.” The Chief Boston/Boise saw the announcement and after lunch Monday, Justice April church, went with a friend where they pur- chased four tickets. He asked the sold the woman who about, answered, tickets what Boston/Boise was all and she “It was a committee that was formed to counteract that had resulted from the indictments in negative publicity in December, Revere the discontinuance of the hotline effective, which was hotline had been instituted District Mr. I am sure Attorney Byrne, who insti- apparently. tuted that hotline for but had been anonymous tipsters, they less effective information than gathering thirty effect, that the hotline was in days that information getting or done with.” Two witnesses who were destroyed away either did in- hear failed remember the present himself, and the The Chief identified quiry response. reserved, if card, asked seats could be and left his with his number, office an make answer telephone possible.
Later that had a conversation with day his office about his a lecture people given attending Gore at the Street Church. There Vidal Arlington church, reference the church as a controversial activi- ties there draft card burnings, possi- including that some riders be there. might bility motorcycle referred Gore Vidal as a conversation an avowed homosexual. “gay,” apparently meaning *16 Homans, one 4, P. counsel for 3. On William April cases, received a in the Revere telephone of the defendants him Committee informing from Boston/Boise message Vidal lecture on would be at the Gore the Chief that Justice Mr. Homans After that message, receiving McMenimen, for another Mr. Brian counsel called cases, him of the informed message defendants the Revere to advise him it to the Chief said that owed they Justice would be raiser, the this was a fund proceeds that in the Revere cases. They the defendants used to benefit would call either Mr. McMenimen then agreed informa- them that or Mr. Orfanello give Chief Justice tion. X. Francis 5, 1978, Mr. McMenimen called
On April Orfanello, assistant to Chief the administrative Justice. that he understood told Mr. Orfanello Mr. McMenimen lecture that to attend a night was Chief planning Justice He Committee. Vidal, Boston/Boise Gore sponsored by the committee was and said that to the Revere cases referred defendants, the pro- for the benefit of those formed some of to be used to defray the lecture were ceeds of going He defense of those cases. with the costs associated legal know that this couldn’t “that the Chief possibly said Justice never in a or else he’d essence, a defense fund raiser is, in commit- There was discussion million to it.” years go Mr. movement.” with the rights its connection “gay tee and the message. said he would Orfanello give Justice in his of- was in a committee meeting The Chief Justice secretary told the Chief fice, Mr. Orfanello Justice’s there as soon like to see Chief that he would Justice Masuret, Francis M. Jr., He then told a break. call. assistant, about telephone administrative associate the lecture at Masuret that he told Mr. testified that He defendants, but Mr. criminal raiser for was a fund church of a mention he did not remember testified Masuret reference to did, however, recall Mr. Masuret fund raiser. defend- the criminal for one of as attorney Mr. McMenimen ants. of Bonin.
In Matter thereafter, a break there was 4. Shortly con- had a out of his office and came and the Chief seconds. thirty Orfanello about lasting with Mr. versation Mr. the call from about Orfanello told Chief Mr. Com- the Boston/Boise McMenimen, the fact that including that the lecture and the Gore Vidal mittee was sponsoring benefit group.” a “gay rights” “gay committee was how Mr. asking ended with conversation Justice’s to the was going knew that McMenimen Mr. he did know. lecture, Mr. Orfanello saying he told the Chief the meeting Orfanello testified that *17 criminal defendants. The Chief for the defense was or was said about a fund raiser denied that anything Justice defendants. use of the funds for the benefit any particular to After this conversation Mr. Orfanello said Mr. Masuret did not think the Chief would that Mr. Orfanello Justice Later, to attention what he had been told. after pay any left for the the committee Mr. Orfanello had day, meeting ended, in and office and Chief Justice’s Justice the court house Mr. Masuret did Mr. Masuret left together. not think the Chief should attend an affair sponsored Justice tried to the sub- a and he bring up “gay organization,” to the call” from Mr. referring “very strange ject, McMenimen and the outside would asking why people to the office. The be concerned call enough Justice about, didn’t know the excitement was all and said he what or asked, substance, this, in “What a Nazi dictatorship rebuffed, did not Mr. Masuret felt and pursue Germany?” the subject. from news media
5. At this time the Chief knew in the Revere cases were reports pending Superior He that homosexual cases out ar- arising Court. also knew were in the rests at the Boston Public Library pending tried in Court and be Boston Municipal might eventually in Court. He was scheduled sit as a Superior judge cases, not in course be called of these and would regular any on to them unless there was a a request assign judge reason. special
The Chief should have known that the Street in be Church would at least Arlington part par- in tisan interest criminal defendants cases rally in Court, that the Revere cases were pending discussed, be and of ticket sales likely proceeds be used the benefit the defendants might part those cases. The Chief should also have known that his attendance would confidence promote public it and that reflect might adversely impar- judiciary, duties, of his interfere with the performance tiality, judicial into office bring judicial disrepute. 6. On the his wife evening April Justice, lecture, Gore arriv- and another attended the Vidal couple 7:45 ushered reserved seats about were ing They p.m. row, or third the second and remained throughout pro- The Chief asked whether he wanted sit gram. row, answered, in the front He was asked “Why?” introduced, he wanted and answered that he whether did not. other
Before Gore Vidal there were several spoke There was discussion of the Revere cases and the speakers. cases, Public of harassment of “gays” by Boston Library of the current “witch- district attorney police, *18 hunt” and “show trials.” One of the said that over speakers 1,500 of this will be were and “most present money people themselves, to of the witnesses the so- the defense going to victims, their and the National called parents, Jury Proj- to ect which entered these cases in order see that a fair has trial can exist.” possibly there was a of dis-
Before Gore Vidal spoke high degree confusion, the Chief traction and and engaged Justice with the others He and others tes- conversations party. and heard tified that the were boring they proceedings could hear the proceedings, although they only portions But he from the when listened. they what was said pulpit to the Boston arrests at admitted references hearing police to victims Public the alleged Library, ages he harassment, to and we infer that cases, Revere police In the Matter Bonin. cases. He did hear the Revere other statements about
heard said, “very and Gore Vidal discussed Gore Vidal what to the fact in Boston attributable sinister” happenings a “the Revere Beach capers,” an election 1978 is year, Public in the Boston “witchhunt,” and “entrapment” arrests. Library into an was
7. After lecture the Chief taken Justice to told Gore introduced Gore Vidal. He anteroom and to it that he said was “wrong Vidal enjoyed speech, The Chief assume are dwellers). judges troglodytes” (cave knew that his was taken during picture being Justice did not was taken but realize a being evening, picture he Gore Either when was Vidal. before talking just just Vidal, he Mr. after Gore the Chief met spoke Justice McMenimen, who introduced himself. Chief Justice Orfanello, asked whether was the man who called Mr. answered, and Mr. McMenimen “Yes.” On the Boston morning Thursday, April carried a the Chief the front newspaper picture Justice headline, and a news with the “Bonin benefit at page story for sex defendants.” On three of same page newspaper additional and a material Chief picture with Gore Both Mr. Vidal. chatting read Some before 9 had Orfanello time story. they a.m. conversation in to the brief which there was reference Also before 9 a.m. Mr. called the senior Orfanello story. one other associate Court and least justice called attention In both associate justice story. he said he told the before the lecture calls had Chief Justice criminal be used for the defense of were proceeds He on the Mr. defendants. also talked telephone McMenimen and said he had given message. told the same Mr. Orfanello Later day to Mr. wanted talk
that counsel the Chief Justice *19 convesation, had the After that Mr. Orfanello Orfanello. him that the Chief wanted say impression Justice was for a “gay” Chief knew that the lecture only Justice and that the not group Chief did know it for a was Justice fund. defense talked on the he Subsequently telephone counsel for the Chief said told Justice, he had the Chief lecture was did not but “gay” group, say Justice that he had told it the Chief was a fund raiser. In- Justice deed, told he counsel that Mr. not told McMenimen had him fund about a raiser. anything on 7, Early counsel for morning Friday, April the Chief interviewed Mr. Orfanello. For the first time told Mr. Orfanello counsel that Mr. had McMenimen told him that the lecture was a fund He also raiser. said counsel that he had omitted that fact giving and had told the message, Chief only it was a benefit.” At “gay counsel’s Mr. Orfanello request wrote out and statement the events. The signed state- ment referred Mr. McMenimen’s statement that the talk was a committee “which sponsored raising money for the defense of some who involved were with people or children in East Revere,” Boston but said the follow- only toas what Mr. Orfanello told ing told “I Justice: him I from had received a call had an who said he attorney heard he was the Gore Vidal lecture going night it benefit, was a or or other some gay group, gay words I don’t recall what descriptive implying gay people. I used. The Chief asked me description attorney how knew I I said didn’t know.” After Orfanello Mr. had statement, said, written counsel “You could be accused for the Chief covering up Justice,” responded, it “That’s way happened.” on
Later the same issued a day, press release, counsel, drafted assistance of stating other “Prior lecture, I among things, attending my did know that from the ticket any funds sales fund, or, would used in cases in- defense any pending deed, for other than as stated in the Globe any purpose I fact, the ticket. In did intended learn use until it in these funds reading press April the lecture.” day following *20 703 the Matter of Bonin. a letter from or received
On 7 8 the Chief April District, listing twenty- for the District Suffolk Attorney of cases, to the the cases discussion referring four Revere not Church, “that you Street and requesting Arlington no in cases, on the take and following part sit yourself to The Chief the trial them.” assigning justice he would not ordi- on out that responded pointing stating unless specifically requested, cases assign narily not of any trial assignment he had participated no to that he had cases, statement referring public “How- of the fund knowledge prior raising, adding, to ever, in of the media coverage allay possible view any not in or I any will public misconception, participate assign these cases. Should any requests forthcoming, they The will be referred the senior trial same day justice.” on to the of the Committee wrote a similar letter chairman he had fact been adding Responsibility, weeks, had not new cases for the three past assign- sitting month ed himself sit for the and would April, to sit himself until committee issued its assign findings to the relative investigation.
10. On testified Tuesday, April under oath deposition. following questions answers were of his part testimony: “Did make these you any inquiry any people
(a) Q. whom talked as nature Boston/Boise you Committee?”
A. “No.” our 2
This testimony contrary finding paragraph above. “Did from source receive you any
(b) Q. [before information that this talk was being sponsored by meeting] for the a committee which defense raising was money involved Revere?” people “I did not.”
A. “In those remarks that any preliminary you (c) Q. to, there reference the cases heard and listened any in the Suffolk Court?” pending Mass.
In the of Bonin. Matter “No, I don’t A. believe I believe so. there was reference the Boston Public arrests at the Boston Library police Public Library.”
The Chief then volunteered testimony *21 speaker immediately Mr. Vidal mentioned the preceding Revere cases the victims. In fact the ages speaker Reeves, who mentioned those facts was Thomas was and he Mitzel, followed one who introduced Mr. Vidal. John event, “In no to any remember reference Q. you Revere cases the introduction of Mr. prior [by Reeves] Vidal; is that correct?”
A. I have mentioned.” “Except just “I to the say, introduction of Mr. Vidal.” Q. prior “Well, A. I would it the introduction of phrase during Mr. Vidal.” that, “But before had heard no mention of the
Q. you Revere case?”
A. “That’s true.” fact,
In the Revere cases mentioned before Mr. were Reeves spoke. funds, “Was said about the the use of
(d) Q. anything funds, from derived the meeting?” A. “No. To I do not date, media, read the know having use the funds derived from the since I have seen several about it.” conflicting reports media answer, “No,” is the fact. contrary me think “Now let ask I we the descrip-
(e) Q. you, got tion in- remarks who introductory gentleman Vidal, troduced Mr. and I thought think said you you that somewhere in those remarks there had been a reference to Revere.” — “The I and I don’t A. remark can remember only —
remember well because of not much attention paying 22 I or was about victims something alleged being of- don’t if or time of know that meant now at the alleged or fenses what.” were
There other relevant remarks. Mass. of Bonin. the Matter all 6, and at on Thursday, Orfanello knew April Mr. the events times, April that his recollection subsequent to counsel to the he had made 5 was statements contrary to the press Chief contrary Justice’s Mr. 9, and thereafter 7. On release of April Sunday, counsel him inform Masuret urged not do so. On Tuesday, April but he did discrepancy, state- of the Chief a sworn Justice, after the deposition from About hour before ment taken Mr. Orfanello. an taken, to counsel for Orfanello said statement was Mr. “Paul, under if I Mr. Meserve testify Chief Justice, “Frank, oath, I will Chief.” Counsel bury responded, me didn’t tell this before?” why you
Discussion. *22 First in what, we state the of a briefly opinion majority not court, the remains It is the Chief unproved. that proved or the knew understood before he attended actually Justice 5, 1978, the on Street Church meeting Arlington April that the for, would be fund raiser or con- meeting would cern with, itself the Revere cases specifically pending to Court. Whatever Mr. Orfanello Mr. said it5, Masuret or on not that is April proved Justice he succeeded in either of them the meet- making aware that not of that It the would be character. is that ing proved Chief on 6 to Mr. have Orfanello make April sought Justice or which the knew be false statement Chief would Justice It if made. is not that Chief the misleading proved Justice knew release 7 was false when issued. Nor the press April it 11, 1978, is the on that Chief knew proved April Justice in of the when he 10 gave testimony quoted paragraph in that that was false findings, testimony any foregoing testi- material between the any discrepancies particular: and the facts can for be accounted mony Jus- or tice’s inattention uncertain memory.
It from the Chief appears findings or to the in almost wilfulness negligent ignoring point to information his attention brusquely dismissing as brought — to the character of the the Revere cases meeting would in discussion, come for likely partisan and that part would be destined for proceeds likely the benefit of the defendants in those cases. Although not Chief to shown have known these he as things entered the on had earlier been sufficient meeting, put to events, find out. all he should have inquiry try learned enough fact did learn during meeting, enough realize that his attend- following morning, ance at the well be viewed as He meeting might improper. reaction, took some measures moderate but public or were as effective as should they prompt have they been. it is the
Upon unanimous findings, opinion court that the Chief behavior was improper. Justices conclusion from follows traditional and accepted principles. it be for the would Chief at-
Clearly improper tend the avails were be used as meeting knowing a defense fund cases would be knowing pending then made the comment. Indeed subject partisan has himself indicated his that such agreement conduct would This knowing improper. appears only his statement and his letter of press April the chairman of the Committee Re- but also his cross-examination sponsibility, pro- *23 before us. But if conduct would be im- ceedings an knowing to then it seems the court that it was likewise an propriety, one, for the in a lesser Chief impropriety, although Justice, rashness, or to to his fail heed of take informa- impatience tion and which would have more definite warnings brought to or him if he had considered them knowledge pursued seriously. this
What was was put by neglect impar- jeopardy well of im- demanded as appearance tiality judges, of them. A must distance also demanded partiality, judge himself from cases rea- impending by taking pending to avoid contact sonable with precautions extrajudicial 707 of Bonin. In the Matter Con- of the Code of is at the heart them. That duty 5, 3:25, Rule Canons (A), (A) (4), duct. See S.J.C. no less falls with certainly Mass. 848 (1972). duty re- extensive administrative force on with a Chief Justice file; on a of the rank and than sponsibilities judge mat- case, of the and considering present circumstances of the members public, ter from the of reasonable viewpoint to the Chief it can no more than a contend quibble not be claim because he might could indulgence to or relevant himself. called on cases assign try of the obliga- of the evils from flowing disregard Certain in the situa- tion of were realized impartiality conspicuously tion his at the Chief at bar. attendance By to not ex or one-sided himself exposed only parte court, before his statements and matters argumentation to but favor further his compromised position by seeming views partisan have particular sympathy Indeed, the affair. group sponsored felt it or desirable himself necessary shortly disengage from least official the cases temporarily participation (see — 10 to self- letter the district attorney) induced which was itself be avoided. disqualification Canon 5 There can be little doubt Compare (C) (3). — and, think, could had we have been
episode expected —have effect the confidence negative thinking in the Common- the administration public justice wealth.
It was suggested during proceedings judges not about should be deterred from themselves informing are contentious issues social and that importance, judges in their ac- helped professional thought judgment in their themselves current with ideas quainting feelings Hence, at- communities. it was argued, Justice’s the an- at the which included tendance meeting April Vidal, nounced lecture Gore exception- only so far as able but was commendable. The went argument in these circum- discipline intimate — invade as a citizen stances would his constitutional rights *24 — which he did not renounce or forgo a by becoming judge to benefits free enjoy association speech his fellow citizens.
We agree that emphatically of a “[cjomplete separation from judge activities is neither nor extrajudicial possible wise; he should become from isolated in society which he lives.” ABA on Canon 5 We commentary5 (A). it that is well for agree a intellectual interests ex- judge’s tend to a comprehension attitudes and beliefs of minority groups, minorities which excepting are defined their sexual or or by views preferences behavior. ordinary circumstances the Chief would be en- any judge free attend a tirely lecture about sex public and politics or not whether a sponsored Nor is a by “gay” group. judge under in any duty situations ordinary inquire minutely into the sponsorship public before meetings undertaking to attend them. caution, Excessive self-consciousness, or this kind self-abnegation is neither nor required desirable. — The factor or special case difficulty present —
stone of
which did
stumbling
call
caution was that
had
reason
infer
good
particular
on
court;
would trench
matters
in his
pending
so it
did
fact. That called for a
on
measure
abstention
his
“A
part.
activities,”
civic . . .
judge may participate
but
condition
“do not
reflect
they
upon
impar-
Canon 5
Toward
tiality.”
evenhandedness,
(B).
preserving
and the
outward
signs
“must...
ac-
quality,
judge
restrictions
cept
his conduct
be viewed as
might
burdensome
citizen and
do
should
so
ordinary
freely
ABA
on Canon 2
willingly.”
and see
commentary
(B);
the remarks of this court in In the Matter
364 Mass.
Troy,
15, 71
quoted
circumstances ex-
(1973),
margin.6
5The reference
commentary published by
the American Bar
Association
it promulgated
when
the Code of
(1972),
Conduct
largely adopted
which was
this
court
rule 3:25.
“Unquestionably
judge
We said:
is entitled to
private
lead his own
there,
life free from unwarranted intrusion.
subjected
But even
as he is
*25
709
680
375 Mass.
Bonin.
In the Matter of
occasion on which
5
an
isting
presented
“restriction.”
accept
required
other
is en
noted, the Chief
like
judges
As already
of
and
speech
titled to and can assert constitutional
rights
Still it
clear that
is
association (including assembly).
judges,
from
servants,
other
must suffer
public
company
are
time to time
limits on these
as
rights
appropriate
such
of
official duties
exercise in
situations
their
given
Boston,
Comm’r
368
Broderick v. Police
functions. See
33,
Boston Police Patrolmen’s Assn
37, 42-43
Mass.
(1975);
Boston,
United States
368,
v.
374-375 (1975);
Carriers,
v.
Ass’n
Letter
Civil Serv. Comm’n
National
548, 565,
413 U.S.
567
Morial v.
Comm’n
Judiciary
(1973);
denied,
cert.
La.,
ceedings, ample justification of the Chief the exercise of a mild self- requiring restraint, in which he failed. Neither nor a requirement sanction for the failure raises serious under the any question First or Fourteenth Amendment United States Consti- tution or of the Constitution of the corresponding provisions Commonwealth.8
To deal with the particular charges: The first four of the information relate to the charges Chief attendance at the of 5 and the meeting April Justice’s essential accusation is he “should have known and knew,” advance, in was intended as a fund meeting raiser for the cases at which it was there pending likely cases, would be discussion of the and as expected partisan discussion occurred. assertion that the Chief Justice “knew” is not in the proved opinion majority court, but rest is found in substance and effect. As Chief “should have known” the character of the Justice on court, and its cases in his but meeting bearing pending it, nevertheless he 2 attended violated Canons and 5 (A) (B), in that he failed to conduct himself a manner that pro- moted confidence in the and public impartiality integrity activities which judiciary engaged extra-judicial reflected on his and interfered with adversely impartiality duties, of his thus performance judicial violating also Rule 3:17 conduct by engaging (2) prejudicial S.J.C. of- administration of which justice brought judicial fice into these we have at- disrepute. considering charges that, tached no additional or to the fact significance weight chosen to attend the re- having meeting, mained to its close and met with the principal speaker thereafter. court,
In the it of a opinion majority proved statements in made false knowingly 8 express We thanks for a brief submitted the Massachusetts Civil Union, court, Liberties a friend of the which dealt with constitu tional issues. 711 of Bonin.
In the Matter April or in his testimony his release press his administrative or have sought charge), (fifth false he knew would be assistant make a statement charge). misleading (sixth materially
Disposition. the events concerning conclude that the facts proved We at attendance surrounding Justice’s Church and the facts established Street Arlington ninth warrant a to the charges public eighth respect conduct The Chief of Chief Bonin. censure Justice’s created the impropriety, appearance improper a chief bias, A influence. particularly special judge, con- to the which his must be sensitive impression justice, The Chief duct creates minds public. an degree insensitivity
has manifested unacceptable those which are obligations imposed person special often failed that the public He has perceive position. *27 chief as a and a does between a distinguish judge justice to as a For use his position chief as a person. example, justice to seats at chief reserved obtaining justice justify to then Street Church and expect at the Arlington meeting there as that should view his presence merely public to citizen, an inclination accept of a shows private of its burdens. office by any benefits unaccompanied censured. Robert M. Bonin is hereby publicly that the whether We question recognize to to receive compensation continue serve and should to department one assigned judicial such is See Matter of the Commonwealth. under the Constitution DeSaulnier Matter 364 21-22 Mass. (1973); Troy, deem it But we ap- 807-809 4), (1972). (No. constitutional and statutory our propriate, pursuant of the Common- over the courts powers supervision ex- of the Chief should wealth, that the suspension the executive and legis- time tend for a reasonable permit wish, the consider, if question branches they lative Mass. In the Matter Bonin. continuance of the Chief on office, the basis such factors as think they appropriate, including, perhaps, the record before us and the conclusions we have drawn from it. A of this are transcript exhibits proceeding available the Governor and the Legislature request. The order of shall continue in effect until further suspension court, order of this but that order will be continued for only a reasonable as described above. period,
So ordered. Appendix “A” BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL
RESPONSIBILITY A CONCERNING INQUIRY JUDGE NOS. 77-67 and 77-108 NOTICE OF FORMAL PROCEEDINGS Committee Responsibility hereby gives Bonin, notice Robert M. of the Superior Court Commonwealth Massachusetts “Re- (the it has concluded that formal spondent”), proceedings shall be and are instituted him connection hereby against with the forth set herein. charges
First Charge 3,1978, 1. On tickets April purchased Respondent 5, 1978, be held on Arlington Church, Boston, Massachusetts, Street for the benefit of the *28 Boston/Boise Committee at the which principal speaker to be Gore Vidal the and Politics “Sex addressing subject in Massachusetts” (the “Meeting”). 5, 1978,
2. On the in fact attended the Respondent Meeting. the the
3. Prior was in- Meeting, attending Respondent formed, the should have known and knew that proceeds Mass. 680 of Bonin.
In the Matter for the intended to be used part the ticket sales were he cases which in 24 criminal the defendants benefit of Court in the (the then Superior knew were pending Cases and of such them in the defense to assist and “Cases”) in the others involved of witnesses and the assistance Cases. acts, the that, it
THEREFORE, foregoing by charged 3:25, Rule Court the violated Respondent Supreme Judicial in a manner to conduct himself 2A, in that he failed Canon and confidence in integrity impar- that promotes public 5R, that he and Canon engaged tiality judiciary; im- reflect on his activities which adversely extra-judicial of his and interfere with performance judicial partiality acts, that, duties. It is also foregoing charged Court Rule 3:17(2), violated Supreme Respondent in office conduct in that he in misconduct prej- engaged which udicial to the administration brings justice office into disrepute. judicial
Second Charge 2 hereinabove are hereby incorpor- Paragraphs reference in this Second Charge. ated by should 5. Prior to Meeting Respondent attending like- be or were and knew that the Cases would have known to be discussed. ly and other criminal matters Respond-
6. The Cases Court were discussed be heard in ent knew might in- discussion at the Such Meeting. Respondent’s presence cluded, other statements concerning things, among matters, other criminal of the Cases and such merits in connection criticism of administration justice defendants of doubt as to whether Cases expressions receive a fair trial. in the Cases could acts, that,
THEREFORE,
it is
foregoing
charged
3:25,
Court Rule
violated
Supreme
Respondent
Judical
in a manner
2A,
to conduct himself
in that
failed
Canon
impar-
confidence
integrity
public
promotes
*29
Third Charge 7. 1 and 2 hereinabove are Paragraphs hereby incorpor- ated reference in this Third Charge.
8. Remarks made at the Meeting Respondent’s pres- ence included:
a. Statements the Cases as denouncing improperly
motivated; Cases; b. Statements status concerning Cases; c. Statements the merits of the concerning d. Statements that it was indicating unlikely in the
defendants Cases could or would receive a trial; fair
e. A statement of the ticket proceeds sales
would be used for the benefit of defendants largely Cases; Cases and of others involved f. Statements the status and merits of concerning
other criminal matters which knew Respondent be heard in Court. might did leave the after and all Respondent Meeting any of such statements and to its conclusion. prior
THEREFORE, that, acts, it is charged foregoing 3:25, violated Court Rule Respondent Supreme Judicial 2A, Canon in that he failed to conduct himself in a manner confidence in the promotes public integrity impar- and Canon 5B in tiality judiciary; engaged of Bonin.
In Matter *30 his im- reflect adversely activities which extra-judicial of his judicial the performance and interfere with partiality acts, Re- that, the by foregoing It is also duties. charged in Court Rule 3:17(2), Supreme violated spondent in and conduct in office prej- he misconduct engaged the which brings udicial the administration justice into office disrepute. judicial
Fourth Charge are incor- to 9 hereinabove hereby 10. Paragraphs in reference this Fourth by Charge. porated met At the the 11. the conclusion of Meeting, Respondent the and in the speaker Meeting engaged with principal conversation him. friendly have and knew that
12. should known Respondent and conversation were likely foregoing meeting and and would publicized give appear- photographed that he the criticism the ad- ance endorsed at Meeting endorsed the of funds for ministration raising justice the benefit in the of defendants Cases. conversation
13. The fact of foregoing photographed publicized. acts, THEREFORE, that, it is by charged foregoing 3:25, Rule violated Court Respondent Supreme Judicial 2A, in manner in that he to conduct himself Canon failed and impar- confidence integrity promotes public lent 2B, in that he Canon tiality judiciary; interests of his office to advance private prestige them to others and convey impression permitted him; in to influence and Canon are position they special 5B, in that he activities engaged extra-judicial with the and interfere reflect his impartiality adversely that, duties. It also of his charged judicial performance acts, violated Supreme foregoing Respondent Judi- in that misconduct Court Rule engaged cial 3:17(2), administration of to the and conduct office prejudicial into office disrepute. which brings judicial justice In the Matter Bonin. Charge Fifth 1 and 2 hereinabove Paragraphs are hereby incorpor- ated reference in this Fifth Charge.
15. On 1978, the oath, under Respondent, stated, effect, substance that:
a. He made no to the as to the inquiry prior Meeting Committee;
nature of the Boston/Boise b. He was not advised to the that the prior Meeting
Boston/Boise Comittee would use the funds raised *31 the for the benefit of the by Meeting defendants or Cases; others in involved the c. There no was reference the Cases the Meeting Reeves; to the remarks of
prior Thomas d. There was no at the reference to the use of Meeting
funds derived from the Meeting; e. The Reeves, remark Thomas which related only by Cases, recalled,
to the which Respondent per- tained to the victims. age alleged Each of the statements was material to the in- foregoing then conducted. should have vestigation being Respondent and, fact, known in that knew each the foregoing statements was false. 7, 1978,
16. On the issued a April Respondent press which, stated, release other in things, substance and among effect, did that not learn of the intended use of Respondent the funds raised the until it in the by Meeting reading press 6, 1978, the the The Re- day following Meeting. and, fact, should known in have knew that this spondent statement false.
THEREFORE, that, acts, it is the charged by foregoing 3:25, Court violated Rule Respondent Supreme Judicial 2A, Canon in that he failed to conduct himself in manner confidence public promotes integrity impar- that, It is also tiality judiciary. charged forego- Matter of Bonin. In the Court violated acts, Supreme the Respondent
ing in office misconduct in that he engaged Rule 3:17(2), which the administration justice conduct prejudicial into office disrepute. brings judicial Sixth Charge incorpo- are hereby 1 to hereinabove 17. Paragraphs this Sixth Charge. reference in rated by for his 6, 1978, the Respondent, 18. On or about April Orfanello, X. Adminis- have Francis benefit, own sought Court, to the trative Assistant Chief Justice sub- the matters which are make a statement relating set forth herein, of the five ject charges previously if misleading be false or materially knew would Respondent made, Orfanello, in sub- said to Mr. Respondent I “Frank, it’s that did know stance and effect: important defendants. It’s that the was for defense those money that I knew it was people.” important only gays gay statement, At the time he made Respond- foregoing knew, known, ent should to attending have prior Orfanello, Mr. he was advised actually Meeting effect, substance and Meeting proceeds *32 for would be used the defense of defendants Cases. THEREFORE, that, acts, it is the charged by foregoing 3:25, Court Rule the violated Respondent Supreme Judicial manner 2A, in that he failed to conduct himself in a Canon the confidence in integrity impar- that promotes public that, of It is by also tiality charged forego- judiciary. acts, Court violated ing Respondent Supreme Judicial in that he in misconduct in office Rule 3:17(2), engaged of which conduct administration justice prejudicial office into disrepute. brings judicial
Seventh Charge been Chief 19. The has Respondent of of the Commonwealth Massachusetts Court 7, March 1977. since
20. The Richard Insurance Inc. Conboy Agency, J. is a with its (“Conboy”) corporation usual of business place Boston, in Its Massachusetts. business includes multi- selling life insurance to ple employer group attorneys Massachu- setts and elsewhere. 7, 1977,
21. to March Subsequent Conboy paid approx- for a imately $385 held March reception Respondent 7, 1977.
22. 7, 1977, March Subsequent excess Conboy paid $1,700 10, for a dinner for held on March Respondent 1977.
23. In $1,800 in excess of for the ren- Conboy paid tal a Ford automobile LTD leased in the name Re- wife, Bonin. Said automobile was spondent’s Angela used and his by Respondent wife.
THEREFORE, that, acts, it is charged foregoing has violated Respondent Court Rule Supreme Judicial 3:25, Canon in that he failed avoid or the impropriety 2B, Canon that he lent appearance impropriety; office to advance interests of others or prestige others to are in a permitted convey they impression to influence It is that, him. also special position charged acts, violated foregoing Respondent Supreme Judicial Court Rule in misconduct in of- 3:17(2), engaged fice and conduct to the administration prejudicial justice office into brings judicial disrepute. Charge
Eighth 24. 19 to 23 hereinabove are hereby incor- Paragraphs reference in this porated by Eighth Charge. Massachusetts, Martin is an of- Kelley Plymouth, J. ficer and director of The car rental Conboy. payments by described in 23 hereinabove were ulti- Conboy paragraph *33 treated to Martin mately by Conboy compensation J. two other officials. Kelley Conboy Canton, Massachusetts, 26. of Roberta Martin Downey Kelley’s step-sister. J. the of Bonin.
In Matter Roberta Respondent appointed 27. August in the Office of as a secretary Downey the Court. acts,
THEREFORE, that, it is by foregoing charged Rule Court has violated Supreme Respondent Judicial 3:25, 3B, in that he failed to exercise his power ap- Canon merit; on the in that basis Canon pointment only im- he to avoid or the failed impropriety appearance acts, that, It is also propriety. charged foregoing Court Rule violated Respondent Supreme 3:17(2), in misconduct in office and conduct prej- engaged udicial to the administration of justice brings into office judicial disrepute.
Ninth Charge 28. 19 to are incor- 27 hereinabove Paragraphs hereby reference in this Ninth porated by Charge.
29. The was the Office of the Respondent employed by General of the Commonwealth Massachusetts Attorney from 1975 to March 1977. January
30. all or of the in which the During part period Respond- ent General, served as First Assistant Pauline Attorney Dionne Revere, Mastronadi Massachu- [Mastronardi] setts, Boston, Massachusetts, Stanton were Mary each as a Office of employed Attorney secretary General Commonwealth of Massachusetts and worked and under supervision Respondent. 31. in which he served as First Assist- period During General, ant rendered ser- Attorney Respondent legal Administrators, affiliate, vices for and its Northeast Conboy $1,000 Inc. was Respondent paid per (“Northeast”). month, $25,000 to a total of for such services. amounting in which each worked for the period During in the Office of the General of Respondent Attorney Massachusetts, Commonwealth of Ms. Mastronadi and Ms. services in connection with Stanton secretarial performed services Conboy legal Respondent rendering *34 In theMatter Bonin. Northeast; neither was the compensated by Respondent, or Northeast for Gonboy such secretarial services.
33. in which he served as First During period Assist- General, ant caused Attorney Respondent an attorney the Office of the General of the employed by Com- Attorney Massachusetts, monwealth of who his under su- serving assistant, to render on pervision services behalf legal Northeast; said Gonboy assistant was not compen- sated or for by Respondent, Northeast such Gonboy services. Ms. Mastronadi and Stanton also Ms. legal per- formed secretarial for the services said assistant in connec- services; tion with such neither was legal compensated by or Respondent, Northeast such secretarial Conboy services. In Ms. Mastro- August Respondent appointed
nadi and Ms. Stanton as secretaries the Office of the Court.
THEREFORE, it that, is acts, charged foregoing has violated Rule Respondent Supreme Court Judicial 3:25, 3B, Canon in that he failed to exercise his power ap- merit; on the basis and Canon pointment only he failed to avoid impropriety appearance impro- that, acts, It is also Re- priety. charged foregoing violated Court Rule spondent Supreme 3:17(2), Judicial in misconduct office and conduct engaged preju- to the dicial administration justice brings office into judicial disrepute. accordance Rules the Commit- Operating
tee ad- Responsibility, Respondent hereby Judicial file vised that he answer may written foregoing within hereof.. twenty charges days Responsibility
Committee on Judicial its Chairman and Counsel By Allan G. Chairman Rodgers, Meserve, Robert Counsel W. Wolf, Mark L. Counsel 20, 1978 of Bonin. In the Matter SERVICE OF CERTIFICATE Wolf, for the Committee I, L. Counsel Mark *35 on this date made that I have hereby certify Responsibility, Proceedings upon of Formal Notice of the foregoing service thereof registered Bonin mailing copy Robert M. Brookline, Street, Bonin, 18 Browne M. mail Robert 02146. Massachusetts
L. Wolf
Mark 20, 1978
April “B”
Appendix OF MASSACHUSETTS COMMONWEALTH COURT SUPREME SUFFOLK, SS. JUDICIAL No. 1425 — THE MATTER OF AN INFORMATION IN ROBERT M. BONIN HONORABLE OF TO NOTICE RESPONDENT’SRESPONSE FORMAL PROCEEDINGS Bonin, Chief Robert M. comes the Now Respondent, Jus- of Massa- of the Commonwealth Court tice him as the formal chusetts, charges against and answers follows: Charge
First in Para- the allegations 1. 2. The admits Respondent he was attending he believed that 1 and except graphs states Further, the Respondent a meeting. a lecture and stated as “lecture” his attention that the article calling the Matter Bonin. follows 1978 edition of the Boston (appearing April “Author Sunday Globe): Gore Vidal will discuss ‘Sex and Politics Massachusetts’ at the Wednesday evening Arling- ton Street Church. $5 Admission funds will used benefit Boston/Boise Committee.” 3. denies the Respondent allegations Paragraph Further, Respondent states subsequent 1978, he informed and believes and therefore avers no funds of the Boston/Boise have Committee fact will in fact be for the used benefit individual any defendants and that Boston/Boise Committee is a defense com- mittee, civil but a liberties and educational group.
WHEREFORE, demands that this Respondent charge be dismissed.
Second Charge 4. No further answer required.
5. denies the contained in Respondent Para- allegations 5. graph
6. he to denies that knew the Respondent prior attending lecture that cases be would discussed. The of any transcripts the at the is a lecture matter of record and the speakers not the does of those respondent deny accuracy transcripts as what was actually said. reflecting
Since the of Respondent admits the tran- accuracy is no scripts, will themselves. There averment they speak Further, that heard “discussion.” Re- Respondent any states that his spondent sole the event purpose attending towas Author his attention hear Gore Vidal that not to directed the remarks of other who fully speakers Mr. Vidal. preceded
Since the admitted of Respondent has tran- accuracy to event, of as characterizations what was scripts not more said are so vague capable imprecise specific response.
WHEREFORE, demands that this charge Respondent be dismissed.
In Matter Bonin. Third Charge 7. No further answer required.
8. The has admitted tran- Respondent accuracy the remarks the several at the lecture scripts speakers this answer and paragraph again asserts that reflect what was said. they correctly actually states, The however, Respondent that materials contained in sections a.,b.,c.,d.,e., f., are characterizations and conclusions as what was said as interpreted by drafters of the The true characterization of state- charges. ments made event are matters for court to deter- mine. Respondent further out that there is no points in the Third allegation the remarks and Charge statements of all heard speakers were and understood. is made to (Reference Respondent’s answer Paragraph 6) Respondent denies he specifically heard and under- stood matters him to any requiring prior leave the conclu- sion of the event. admits not Respondent did leave the event to its
prior conclusion and states that he did hear any remarks which him imposed upon any duty leave. ad- dition, the Respondent states that a of the entire reading of the event transcript does reveal any material would under the law have him imposed upon any duty leave.
WHEREFORE, the that respondent demands this charge be dismissed.
Fourth Charge 10. No further answer required. 11. admits to Respondent introduced author being Gore Vidal at the conclusion the and to meeting having in a brief engaged conversation very less than lasting minute. Vidal,
12. Prior to with Mr. meeting did Respondent not know that such would meeting likely photographed of Bonin. Matter
or further states that under publicized. Respondent him it not to be introduced circumstances was improper noted author lecturer. Under no circum- and meet a conduct be termed stances should such improper other of Mr. or an endorsement views Vidal any is Further, this says charge speakers. Respondent to basic fundamental rights any person. repugnant 13. 13. admits the allegations Paragraph Respondent WHEREFORE, this demands that charge Respondent be dismissed. Charge
Fifth 14. No further answer required. admits 1978 he testified
15. Respondent under oath. not is
a. states that specific language Respondent does forth and a fair of the transcript set reading a. of section not assertion conclusion justify b. and b. of section admits allegations Respondent that the are true. states statements not is c. specific states language Respondent does forth and a the transcript set fair reading c. of section not assertion and conclusion justify d. and d. of section admits allegation Respondent he no such reference. recalls hearing states e. states that specific language Respondent does forth and a fair the transcript set reading of section e. the assertion conclusion justify 15, the Re- toAs the remaining Paragraph allegations he knew statement which denies that made any spondent the best faith to he testified good was false and states that of his recollection. release dated press admits issuing Respondent *38 sum- 16 correctly admits that Paragraph 1978 and Mass. 680
In the of Bonin. Matter of release but marizes a contents such denies portion statement such release was false. any WHEREFORE, demands that this charge Respondent be dismissed.
Sixth Charge 17. No answer further required.
18. denies the 18. Respondent allegations Paragraph WHEREFORE, demands this Respondent charge be dismissed.
Seventh Charge 19. admits 19. Respondent allegations Paragraph 20. admits the Respondent 20. allegations Paragraph 21. admits that held Respondent reception was cost was although known personally Respond- ent. The further states neither Respondent the Conboy nor it Agency anyone affiliated with listed host or was as a and therefore no sponsor attached nor thereto, “prestige” was any impression influence special conveyed.
22. admits that the dinner was held Respondent although cost was known personally Respondent. further Respondent states that neither the Conboy Agency nor affiliated with it was anyone listed as host sponsor no thereto, therefore attached nor “prestige” was any impression special influence conveyed.
23. admits Respondent allegations Paragraph but states that the cost individual charged officials forth in set Conboy Paragraph further Respondent states that he reported this with all other mat- gift together ters him to be no and that there was required reported in connection with the impropriety allegations Seventh Charge.
WHEREFORE, demands that this Respondent charge be dismissed. *39 680
726 Eighth Charge 24. No further answer required. the 25. allegation Paragraph
25. Respondent admits the 26. allegation Paragraph 26. admits Respondent 27 the Paragraph 27. admits Respondent allegations that Ms. was Downey and further states when Respondent for the there a valid opening position was appointed the the made basis upon appointment strictly the work and merit and with respondent’s familiarity of Ms. Downey. capabilities that this
WHEREFORE, demands charge Respondent be dismissed. Charge
Ninth further 28. No answer required. 29. Paragraph admits allegations
29. Respondent 30. the allegations Paragraph 30. admits Respondent 31. allegations Paragraph 31. admits Respondent 32 Paragraph 32. allegations admits Respondent was done states that the work Respondent except basis. voluntary 33 Paragraph 33. admits Respondent allegations states was done that the work except Respondent basis. voluntary 34 Paragraph admits Respondent allegation Ms. Mastronadi further states when and Respondent were valid openings Ms. Stanton were there appointed were made and that appointments positions of merit and familiarity basis Respondent’s strictly upon Mastronadi Ms. Ms. work capabilities Stanton. Mass.
In Matter of Bonin. WHEREFORE, demands that this Respondent charge be dismissed.
Robert M. Bonin Court Justice, Superior
Commonwealth of Massachusetts *40 Counsel: Sugarman
Paul R. Sargent David J. I concur with the in so (concurring). opinion Quirico, J. far it found, as states facts im- discipline on the basis of those posed However, facts. as indicated below, on the basis the entire evidence and the inferences therefrom, drawn I would find facts in to addition those found in court identified as part opinion “B. Related the Events Charges at the Street Arlington 5, Church April Fact.” Findings I 2. would insert Finding before last two sentences the first of this an paragraph additional finding finding the ticket seller’s answer to the Chief question Justice’s about “what Boston/Boise was all about” was heard and understood Justice. 4. I would insert after the Finding first two sentences the first of this an paragraph additional finding finding as of the conversation part described in the first two sentences Mr. Orfanello told the Chief that Mr. Justice McMenimen a defendant in the Revere represented cases and that the at the Street meeting Church was Arlington be a fund raiser in connection with those cases. 5. Based on the
Finding two additional findings suggested I above, would the first sentence in the second change of this paragraph read as follows: “The Chief finding knew before he went to the meeting Arlington Street Church it that would at least be a ral- partisan part ly interest of criminal defendants cases pending of Bonin. the Matter Court, that the Revere cases were likely
discussed, be used and that the of ticket sales proceeds might for the benefit of the defendants in those cases.” part 8. I would insert after the first sentence in
Finding this additional second an finding finding paragraph in the first conversation described same part one of the showed Mr. Orfanello sentence lecture, it did not it tickets to the Gore Vidal said that say fund, it was for a defense and that was important for a that he that the knew only affair; Orfanello Mr. whereupon “gay” group “gay” him to if what the Chief wanted said that that was he would that. say, say 9. I would add of this
Finding the second paragraph an that the two sentences quoted additional finding finding were from the Chief release press Justice’s false and misleading. *41 thereto, As the answer
Finding and question (a) 11, 1978, I would find from transcript quoted April at the Street the tickets Arlington when purchasing as made inquiry Church Justice Committee, and that nature of the Boston/Boise false. therefore his answer question (a) from the the answer thereto As to and quoted question (b) find that before same I would attending transcript, at the Street Church meeting Arlington Justice in effect that had informed Mr. Orfanello by been the benefit of defendants to be fund raiser for was find his I would therefore also in the Revere cases. false. of “I did not” was answer (b) question I have additional which sug- I that the findings recognize decisions concerning above depend preliminary gested are Those of the oral witnesses. testimony credibility be each of which must made decisions Justices I in this finder of facts proceeding. or her as a capacity reached fellow decision by my respect preliminary If above. to the extent stated differ from them but I Justices, made, were I which findings propose additional In the Matter Bonin. would, of this
disposition my opinion, require proceeding Chief Bonin a member suspended Commonwealth, bar this and would warrant probably of even consideration more severe discipline. order achieve consensus (concurring).
Braucher, J. detail, views differ in among the court has inevitably omitted from its facts that me. opinion seem important Since conscience, others feel to record compelled, good their I differences, state mine. I in the court’s join opinion, as it as far goes.
Mr. honorable, Orfanello before appeared us as an loyal and servant, reliable but public as a witness whose memory was accurate. He had been always appointed adminis- trative assistant office, predecessor Justice’s who had and vigorously opposed publicly denounced the of Chief Bonin. The Chief appointment did not have a for the high regard administrative assistant he inherited, had Mr. Orfanello was aware of that fact and was concerned about his tenure. The two not com- did municate easily freely.
On the 6, 1978, morning both men Thursday, April the front saw news with the headline “Bonin page story benefit sex defendants.” The Chief in- under on a of which vestigation most have since variety charges, been he had for several months been the sub- dropped, of violent ject criticism. He doubtless felt public unfairly pursued On treated persecuted. Wednesday had *42 to warn him as of friendly invasions his attempts privacy, with kind of reacting stubborn resistance that produces self-inflicted wounds. In this situation the Chief made an attempt, counsel, of to
the aid reconstruct of events Wednesday to issue a release that would press with what he square could remember with what he could ascertain. His reconstructed based on Mr. memory, part Orfanello’s written statement made on was more Friday morning, 375 Mass. Bonin. the Matter of been, than it of his failures of should have and some
positive too I seem convenient. But cannot make finding memory on of own of deliberate falsehood the basis his testimony. three Meanwhile, told least Mr. Orfanello had people on he had warned the Chief that Thursday morning on fund the Gore Vidal was a Wednesday raiser Court criminal defendants. Later he dif- and on two quite Thursday Friday morning gave to I no for the have ferent accounts counsel Chief Justice. honest, were doubt that his statements Thursday morning little to them. He now his but there is corroborate says By statements were false. Friday afternoon and Thursday to must realized he have Sunday, contrary testimony, he that he could be blamed if had failed warn counsel, he and he consulted counsel. As adequately, Thereafter, he resolved his chose the former Chief Justice. Bonin if dilemma, told for Chief counsel testified under oath he would “bury” Justice. from sins small We must be careful distinguish large is the escalation misunder- ones. Particularly dangerous into recollection, clamor and public difference standing, falsehood, the like. false swearing deliberate charges us, cannot sustain such charges record before I On the testi- Without testimony. Mr. Orfanello’s basis are baseless. such mony, charges there suffi- are from the charges proved, Apart from of actual as distinguished cient impropriety, proof court’s deci- warrant “appearance impropriety,” 2 of the Con- Code Canon sion. injunction not be must read of impropriety duct against appearance or misunderstanding cater that a popular judge require “to the His duty in his conduct. extrajudicial prejudice full because the merely never be subordinate should public or may be misunderstood may of his obligation discharge to criticism.” him the legal profession tend subject 9-2, ac- Association, Ethical Consideration American Bar of Professional Respond- 9 of the Code Canon companying I should be 3:22, (1972). Rule sibility, S.J.C. *43 680 731 375 Mass. to in reluctant censure based join solely appearance not 366 and do read Matter Morrissey, impropriety, Mass. 16 as so based. (1974), Abrams, whom with J., (concurring, joins). J. Wilkins, I with the in this mat-
Although agree disposition proposed ter with in most of factual conclusions expressed court, I believe that certain were opinion allegations to some this court have found proved Justices been have established. I believe that Mr. Specifically, told Orfanello the Chief their brief conversation Justice 5, 1978, words, the afternoon of form some April that benefit at the Street was in- “gay” Church Arlington to tended raise funds aid in the defense of certain crim- inal I am defendants. satisfied the reference defense fund brief and full was that its escaped import attention of the Chief who seemed concerned about Justice, Mr. how McMenimen learned was attend going him and about others not to attend meeting an advising event I sponsored “gay” group. agree Justice Braucher’s Chief characterization of the reaction to Justice’s these attempts warn him. friendly
On the the Chief was following morning, acutely Justice aware Mr. told him significance what Orfanello afternoon I previous “defense fund.” am concerning that Mr. Orfanello told the Chief about persuaded the use ticket defense of criminal cases proceeds because the next did not day question about, for, Mr. Orfanello him him challenge telling a “defense fund” was involved. certain under When answered questions oath in the course of his deposition, testimony was incorrect. He had what the Boston/Boise inquired Committee had been He had told was and told. been was intended raise funds assist defense criminal defendants. certain this respect, However, mistaken. plainly considering *44 of Bonin.
In the Matter of the asked context of the the form and specific questions literal very Justice, considering Justice’s not intention- I conclude that he did approach questions, on testified under oath April facts when he ally misrepresent of the of the nature something 1978. He had heard but attending meeting Committee before Boston/Boise it at concerning well have remembered inquiry may the tickets. Street Church when purchased the Arlington him that the told Mr. Orfanello Although not find that the defendants, I do fund raiser criminal the use information concerning received Chief Justice in the ap- character described ticket proceeds precise him April put plicable question 7, 1978, although I release April believe that press as he true, Perhaps, misleading. was knowingly literally of the intended use “did learn said, the Chief Justice 6, 1978, the it in the funds until reading press these he did hear one lecture,” representa- but following day “most at the meeting Committee say tive the Boston/Boise ... the National Jury Project of this will be going money that a fair trial in order see entered these cases which has been, have release may exist.” press can possibly moderate states, a measure taken of the court opinion com- frank and was, however, less than a It reaction. public told and had been of what statement plete what he knew. W. Notes the Code Con- Reporter’s duct 85 “If the and the donor are (1973). judge willing the transaction given light publicity, is better served the transaction judicial system having consummated.” Id. As matters of the leased developed, receipt gift automobile created the appearance impropriety. During when period and two other officers were Kelley Conboy automobile, making the leased monthly payments Chief half sister appointed Kelley’s position the office of the $2,000 at an annual salary above that which she as a the At- receiving secretary General’s office. This act created the torney possibility would conduct of the Chief public regard judicial Jus-