Judicial Panel Recommends Suspension for Judge! Is that Enough?
I was in court on Wednesday and the Judge was reading a report issued by a panel of the state's Judicial Standard's Board. The judge in my case noted that he was reading about all things not to do when you are a judge. He was right.
Rochelle Olson from the Minneapolis Star Tribune wrote an interesting piece on the panel's recommendation. Timothy Blakey, a judge in Goodhue and Dakota Counties, Minnesota, sent business to his divorce lawyer - to whom he owed something in excess of $108,000 for unpaid fees.
The Lawyer likes the business, gives Blakely a $63,503 discount, and says she hopes he will continue to send her business. A panel of the Minnesota Judicial Standards Board reviewed the facts and recommended that Judge Blakely be suspended without pay for six months. Forever seems like a better recommendation.
What is not clear to me is, why the discount is not considered at least attempted bribery by the attorney, and accepting a bride by the judge. In Minnesota the applicable statute reads:
609.42 Bribery.
Subdivision 1. Acts constituting. Whoever does any of the following is guilty of bribery and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) offers, gives, or promises to give, directly or indirectly, to any person who is a public officer or employee any benefit, reward or consideration to which the person is not legally entitled with intent thereby to influence the person's performance of the powers or duties as such officer or employee; or
(2) being a public officer or employee, requests, receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any such benefit, reward or consideration upon the understanding that it will have such an influence;
***
Subd. 2. Forfeiture of office. Any public officer who is convicted of violating or attempting to violate subdivision 1 shall forfeit the public officer's office and be forever disqualified from holding public office under the state.
Additionally, forgiveness of a debt is taxable income. The judge gained $63,503 in taxable
income because the debt was forgiven. That should be an impressive tax bill.
It is not uncommon in Minnesota, and I assume elsewhere, for judges to recommend certain mediators or a group of mediators to litigants. It is also common for judges to recommend firms to people that ask. This is not improper in itself.
What Blakely and his divorce attorney did is hopefully very rare. The matter now goes to the entire Judicial Standards Board for a final recommendation, and then on to the Minnesota Supreme Court - assuming the Board sustains the recommendation and agrees that discipline in warranted.
As an attorney that practices before many of the courts in the state, I think the recommendation is far too light. Would Judge Blakely recuse himself if the attorney was representing a party before his court? Should he?
Hopefully the board will reconsider the recommendation. If the public losses trust in the courts, we have lost the trust of a critical part of our government. If litigants are worried about judicial corruption, we are in trouble as a society.
Judge Blakely needs to step down, and the Lawyer's Board needs to look at his lawyer.
Someone might also want to take a peek at the judge's tax return to be sure he paid his taxes on the new income.
