Was Discipline Really Warranted?
July 19, 2006
I am not at all sure I understand the Connecticut Judicial Review Council's decision to suspend New Haven Superior Court Judge Joseph W. Doherty for five days.
The judge disclosed at his renomination hearing last March that he had failed to file tax returns in 2000 and 2001. He attributed this to his wife's illness, and, shortly before renomination by the governor, filed late returns, with substantial penalties and interest. Notwithstanding this lapse, the Legislature reappointed him to an eight year term.
Doherty's failure to file a return looks stupid, but not worthy of discipline.
Why did the JRC need to jump ugly?
The council rarely acts. Doherty's is the first hearing on judicial discipline in almost a decade. In the past three years, the council has received 236 complaints about judges. This is the only complaint in which probable cause was found. Unless and until probable cause is found, complaints remain confidential.
Doherty's omissions do not affect public confidence in the court. They arise from no dereliction of judicial duty. No injustice was done; there was not even an eppearance of impropriety. He just looks disorganized and careless in his personal affairs. If that is the standard, then where will the line be drawn on what private acts of misconduct can warrant judicial discipline. Query: Two judges engage in an affair. Discipline? What if one of both are married to others? Discipline. I am not sure I want to go down that road.
Confidence in the JRC is low. The council is thought to be a sleeper; a do-nothing, know-nothing claque dedicated to the principle that no judicial boat shall ever be rocked. Did it need to find a wrist to slap merely to demonstrate it has a reason for being?
I hope the judge a good way to spend his week off. He should spend at least one day shopping for a tax accountant. On the other four days he ought to be careful. Lord knows what the council will seize upon next.