Arkansas Supreme Court authorizes judge suspensions, orders cooperation with disciplinary probes

Yahoo

21 hours ago

The Arkansas Supreme Court building in Little Rock. (John Sykes/Arkansas Advocate)
A five-member majority of the Arkansas Supreme Court granted the state judicial discipline commission's request for changes to the rules for judges' and justices' conduct in a Thursday per curiam order.
The changes concern accusations of judicial misconduct and disciplinary action against judges and justices who face such allegations. The divide among the Supreme Court justices who supported or dissented from the order mirrored conflicts within the court earlier this year. Chief Justice Karen Baker and Associate Justice Courtney Hudson dissented from the order.
Thursday's order approved two alterations to the Judicial Code of Conduct: a new provision allowing the court to issue interim suspensions of judges accused of crimes or misconduct and an amendment that broadens an existing rule requiring cooperation with disciplinary authorities and prohibiting retaliation.
According to the rule regarding suspensions, the Supreme Court may suspend a judge with pay 'upon notice of the filing of an indictment, information, or complaint charging the judge with a 'serious crime' under state or federal law.'
In_re_Rule_of_Jud._Disc._Enforcement
A 'serious crime' includes 'any felony or lesser crime that reflects adversely on the judge's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a judge in other respects' or any crime involving 'interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, theft or an attempt, conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a 'serious crime,'' the rule states.
The rule is based on a model policy from the American Bar Association, and the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission specifically asked the high court for the rule, according to the order. The commission investigates complaints about the conduct of judges and justices and has the authority to recommend disciplinary actions.
The rule also allows suspensions for 'other misconduct,' which includes but is not limited to 'witness intimidation, retaliation, or a threat thereof.'
Another portion of the code of conduct states that a judge 'shall cooperate and be candid and honest with judicial and lawyer disciplinary agencies' and must not retaliate 'against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation' of judicial misconduct.
The amended provision approved by the Supreme Court majority specifies that intimidation is also prohibited and that the rule applies to 'a judge, justice, special judge/justice, judicial candidate, or judge-elect.'
Earlier this year, the high court ordered the release of a report alleging that Baker harassed judiciary employees on Dec. 4-5, 2024, after she was elected but before she was sworn in as the state's first elected female chief justice.
'Justice Baker intimidated staff, appears to have targeted female employees of color, indicated an intention to retaliate based on her perception of how employees voted, and indicated an intention to retaliate based on her perception of whether employees were cooperating with Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission's investigation into her colleague's conduct,' the report from the Administrative Office of the Courts human resources department states.
UPDATED: Arkansas Supreme Court chief justice harassed court staff, per human resources report
Baker co-signed Hudson's dissenting opinion on Thursday's per curiam order. Hudson wrote that the rule regarding suspensions 'presents legitimate due-process concerns.'
'It contains absolutely no requirement that notice be provided to the impacted judge either before or after the interim suspension or that the judge be allowed an opportunity to respond to an allegation of misconduct,' Hudson wrote.
She also raised the possibility that the rule violates the state and federal constitutions' ban on adopting rules or laws that govern conduct prior to their adoption.
Associate Justice Rhonda Wood responded to Hudson's dissent with a concurring opinion. Wood argued that the new rule creates more due process for judges, not less, because it 'provides guidelines previously nonexistent.'
The rule also 'sets out parameters for the current authority' that the Supreme Court has always had to suspend judges accused of misconduct and is not a completely new policy applied retroactively, Wood wrote.
Judicial conduct has been at the forefront of the Arkansas Supreme Court since September 2024. Five of Hudson's colleagues referred her to the JDDC for 'flagrant breaches of confidentiality' after she filed then-Chief Justice John Dan Kemp's emails into evidence in her attempt to block the release of emails between her, Baker and others in response to a FOIA request from Arkansas Business.
Arkansas Supreme Court refers one of its own for disciplinary investigation
Baker dissented to Hudson's referral to JDDC, and she made transparency a focus of her successful runoff campaign against Wood to succeed Kemp, who did not run for reelection last year.
Within days of taking the oath of office Jan. 1, Baker butted heads with the rest of the court over the scope of her authority as chief justice. Hudson was the only one of Baker's colleagues who did not block the chief justice's attempts to fire 10 judiciary employees and appoint three new judges to the judicial discipline body. The other five justices claimed Baker did not have the authority to make such unilateral decisions without consulting the rest of the court.
Issues of judicial misconduct have not been limited to the Supreme Court this year. Former Monroe County district judge and deputy prosecutor T. David Carruth was sentenced in May to two years in federal prison for making false statements to the FBI. He had been admonished by the JDDC in 2018 for improper conduct in violation of the Judicial Code of Ethics.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX