The Judging of Judges

A review of a judge's conduct occurs in two ways: by appellate review and by review from the State Commission for Judicial Ethics. Every state in the US follows a similar structure. In appellate review, at the conclusion of a case or, in limited circumstances, following a substantial ruling, a party may file a notice for review to a higher level court. If a trial is held in justice or city court, the judge's decision is reviewed by Superior Court. If the trial is held in Superior Court, a regional division of the Appellate Court reviews the judge’s decision. If the Appellate Court still does not satisfy a party, then the state’s Supreme Court may review the trial court’s decisions and actions.

The State’s Commission on Judicial Ethics may also review a judge’s decisions or actions. Each state varies on what type of situations or conduct is reviewed. Some states will not review cases in which the judge's conduct or decision is subject to review by the appellate process. Other Commissions are more proactive and review all inquiries into judges' conduct, regardless of the applicability appellate process.

The purpose of review by the Commission on Judicial Ethics varies as well. The Commission does not review judge's conduct to only find that a judge's conduct was unethical, but does so to determine if conduct was irregular or substandard. Judges are expected to govern their conduct to denote fairness and impartiality.

Judge Segal received four notices from the Commission that sanctioned her conduct. Most recently Judge Segal received a sanction for not re-assigning a case to another after she learned that a defendant was disruptive in the court hall, outside of her presence. A judge is prohibited from making any decision about a case if he/she receives information about a litigant. This is called an ex parte communication. Although Judge Segal assigned an attorney to the defendant, it appeared to the Defendant that she considered his out-of-court conduct when she imposed the sentence. The Commission issued a sanction against her conduct for not asking another judge to hear the case.

Judge Segal also received a reprimand from the Commission because she represented her husband in a lawsuit. Judge Segal and her husband were victims of an arson. A home they owned was criminally destroyed in a fire. In order to give legal notice to the arsonist his financial responsibilities for the Segals' loss, Judge Segal filed a lawsuit on behalf of herself and her husband. While a judge can represent him/herself, a judge is ethically prohibited from representing anyone else. Even though Judge Segal never appeared in court and, in fact, voluntarily reported her error to the Commission, she was reprimanded for not being mindful of the rules for judicial conduct.

A third reprimand emerged when the man she defeated in a judicial election, Adam Watters, filed numerous complaints following his loss of the election, including charges that Judge Segal parked illegally during the election, she forced Watters to hear a case involving her son, she mailed secret letters against Watters.  He complained that Judge Segal posted critical remarked about him in an online blog under an assumed name. The Commission found that although Judge Segal's comments about Adam Watters being rude and discourteous were true, the Commission remanded Judge Segal for making the statements about Watters using another identity.

Judge Segal's conduct has been very closely scrutinized. While it is true that she has received reprimands, as many Justices of the Peace have, consider whether the sanctions indicated a need for corrective foresight and if they were created to be used for a political, inappropriate purpose, rather than an effort to make Judge Segal a better jurist.

Please feel free to comment below or send any questions or comments about this post or Judge Segal to Segal@justiceofthe peace1.com. Note that Judge Segal is not permitted to offer legal advice or comment on pending legal cases.