Abstract
Disciplinary liability of a judge for a legal error lies within the sensitive area of interaction between two fundamental principles of the modern society: the principle of independent adjudication and the need for public confidence in the competent justice. It is suggested that judicial independence cannot be a shield for an incompetent judge, and the law should permit, rather on exceptional grounds, disciplinary interference with the adjudicating function, which may entail content-based analysis of judicial decisions. What are the conditions under which a judge should be disciplined for a legal error? In so far as actus reus of the disciplinary misconduct is concerned, it is useful to refer to the US objective reasonableness test. Furthermore, disciplinary proceedings against a judge should necessarily include investigation into the mental element of his/her conduct. Such analysis should permit to distinguish a good-faith legal error which cannot be subject to disciplining from a bad-faith legal error that deserves a disciplinary measure. There are further external factors relevant in determining whether or not the legal mistake should be treated as a disciplinary offence. Those factors include the issue of ambiguity of law, frequency of legal errors, and reversibility of legal errors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Max Planck Minerva Research Group and Human Rights, Kyiv Recommendations on Judicial Independence in Eastern Europe, South Caucasus And Central Asia (2010), § 25.
- 2.
Venice Commission & the CoE Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Joint opinion on the law amending certain legislative acts of Ukraine in relation to the prevention of abuse of the right to appeal (2010), § 39.
- 3.
Gray (2004), p. 1248.
- 4.
Conseil constitutionnel, Commentaire de la décision n° 2007-551 DC du 1er mars 2007.
- 5.
Conseil Constitutionnel, Décision n° 2007-551 DC du 1 mars 2007.
- 6.
Loi organique relative à l’application de l’article 65 de la Constitution (2010), article 21.
- 7.
28 U.S. Code, section 351 (a).
- 8.
28 U.S. Code, section 352 (b) (A) (ii).
- 9.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rules, Rule 3:09: Code of Judicial Conduct (2016), Comment to Rule 2.2.
- 10.
Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct (2009), Comment to Rule 2.2.
- 11.
Maine Code of Judicial Conduct (2017), Rule 2.2.
- 12.
Maine Code of Judicial Conduct (2017), Advisory Notes for Rule 2.2, p. 33.
- 13.
Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct, 2017 Annual Report, p. 1.
- 14.
Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications, 2015 Annual report, p. 13.
- 15.
Maine Committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability, 2015 Annual Report, p. 3.
- 16.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, In the Matter of Benoit (1985).
- 17.
Court on the Judiciary of Oklahoma, Appellate Division, State Edmondson v. Colclazier (2002).
- 18.
Supreme Court of California, Oberholzer v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1999).
- 19.
Supreme Court of Louisiana, In re Boothe (2013).
- 20.
Supreme Court of Kentucky, Alred v. Commonwealth judicial conduct commission (2012).
- 21.
Supreme Court of New Jersey, In the Matter of Louis M.J. Dileo, a Former Judge of the Municipal Court (2014).
- 22.
Lubet (1998), p. 72.
- 23.
New Mexico Judicial Education Center (2011), pp. 4–6.
- 24.
Stern (2004), pp. 1558–1559.
- 25.
Shaman (1988), p. 9.
- 26.
Stern (2004), p. 1556.
- 27.
New Mexico Judicial Education Center (2011), pp. 4–6.
- 28.
UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), General comment no. 32, Article 14, Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to fair trial, 2007, § 20.
- 29.
IBA, Minimum Standards of Judicial Independence, 1982.
- 30.
Consultative Council of European Judges of the Council of Europe, Opinion no. 3 (2002) on the principles and rules governing judges’ professional conduct, in particular ethics, incompatible behaviour and impartiality, § 60.
- 31.
Consultative Council of European Judges of the Council of Europe, Opinion no.10 (2007) to the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the Council for the Judiciary at the service of society, §§ 62–63.
- 32.
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, RecommendationCM/Rec(2010)12 to Member States on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities.
- 33.
Venice Commission & the CoE Directorate of Human Rights & the OSCE Office for democratic institutions and human rights, Joint Opinion on the draft law on disciplinary liability of judges of the Republic of Moldova (2014), §§ 20–22.
References
28 U.S. Code, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. Retrieved April 9, 2019, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/352
Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct. (2009). Retrieved April 7, 2019, from http://www.azcourts.gov/portals/137/rules/Arizona%20Code%20of%20Judicial%20Conduct.pdf
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, RecommendationCM/Rec(2010)12 to Member States on judges: Independence, efficiency and responsibilities, 17 November 2010. Retrieved April 7, 2019, from https://rm.coe.int/16807096c1
Conseil constitutionnel, Commentaire de la décision n° 2007-551 DC du 1er mars 2007, Les Cahiers du Conseil constitutionnel, Cahier n° 22. Retrieved April 7, 2019, from https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/sites/default/files/as/root/bank_mm/commentaires/cahier22/ccc_551dc.pdf
Conseil Constitutionnel, Décision n° 2007-551 DC du 1 mars 2007. Retrieved April 7, 2019, from http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions-depuis-1959/2007/2007-551-dc/decision-n-2007-551-dc-du-1-mars-2007.1170.html
Consultative Council of European Judges of the Council of Europe, Opinion no. 3 (2002) on the principles and rules governing judges’ professional conduct, in particular ethics, incompatible behaviour and impartiality, Strasbourg, 19 November 2002. Retrieved April 7, 2019, from https://rm.coe.int/16807475bb%20-%20P228_38580
Consultative Council of European Judges of the Council of Europe, Opinion no.10 (2007) to the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the Council for the Judiciary at the service of society, Strasbourg, 23 November 2007. Retrieved April 7, 2019, from https://rm.coe.int/168074779b
Court on the Judiciary of Oklahoma, Appellate Division, State Edmondson v. Colclazier, No. CJAD-01-2, 14 June 2002.
Gray, C. (2004). The line between legal error and judicial misconduct: Balancing judicial independence and accountability. Hofstra Law Review, 32(4), 1245–1280.
IBA, Minimum Standards of Judicial Independence, 1982.
Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications, 2015 Annual report. Retrieved April 7, 2019, from http://www.kscourts.org/appellate-clerk/general/commission-on-judicial-qualifications/2015-Annual-Report.pdf
Loi organique n° 2010-830 du 22 juillet 2010 relative à l’application de l’article 65 de la Constitution. Retrieved April 7, 2019, from https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr
Lubet, S. (1998). Judicial discipline and judicial independence. Law and Contemporary Problems, 61, 59–74.
Maine Code of Judicial Conduct. (2017). Retrieved April 7, 2019, from http://www.courts.maine.gov/rules_adminorders/rules/text/mc_jud_conduct_plus_2017-9-5.pdf
Maine Committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability, 2015 Annual Report. Retrieved April 7, 2019, from http://www.jrd.maine.gov/pdfs/jrd_ar15.pdf
Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct, 2017 Annual Report. Retrieved April 7, 2019, from https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/05/15/CJC%202017%20Annual%20Report_1.pdf
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rules, Rule 3:09: Code of Judicial Conduct. (2016). Retrieved April 7, 2019, from https://www.mass.gov/supreme-judicial-court-rules/supreme-judicial-court-rule-309-code-of-judicial-conduct
New Mexico Judicial Education Center. (2011). New Mexico judicial ethics handbook. University of New Mexico School of Law.
OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Max Planck Minerva Research Group and Human Rights, Kyiv Recommendations on Judicial Independence in Eastern Europe, South Caucasus And Central Asia. (2010, June 23–25). Retrieved April 7, 2019, from https://www.osce.org/odihr/kyivrec
Shaman, J. M. (1988). Judicial ethics. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 2(1), 1–20.
Stern, G. (2004). Judicial error that is subject to discipline in New York. Hofstra Law Review, 32(4), 1547–1563.
Supreme Court of California. (1999). Oberholzer v. Commission on Judicial Performance. 20 Cal 4th 371, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 466; 975 P.2d 663.
Supreme Court of Kentucky. (2012). Alred v. Commonwealth judicial conduct commission. No. 2011–SC–000558–RR.
Supreme Court of Louisiana, In re Boothe (2013), 12–1821 (La.1/29/13), 110 So.3d 1002.
Supreme Court of New Jersey, In the Matter of Louis M.J. Dileo, a Former Judge of the Municipal Court (072095), D-66-12 (N.J. 2014).
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, In the Matter of Benoit, 487 A.2d 1158 (Me. 1985).
UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), General comment no. 32, Article 14, Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to fair trial, 23 August 2007, CCPR/C/GC/32. Retrieved April 7, 2019, from http://www.refworld.org/docid/478b2b2f2.html
Venice Commission & the CoE Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Joint opinion on the law amending certain legislative acts of Ukraine in relation to the prevention of abuse of the right to appeal, No. 588/2010, CDL-AD(2010)029), Strasbourg, 18 October 2010. Retrieved April 7, 2019, from http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2010)029-e
Venice Commission & the CoE Directorate of Human Rights & the OSCE Office for democratic institutions and human rights, Joint Opinion on the draft law on disciplinary liability of judges of the Republic of Moldova, no. 755 / 2014 (CDL-AD(2014)006), Strasbourg / Warsaw. (2014, March 24). Retrieved April 7, 2019, from http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2014)006-e
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pashuk, T. (2019). Disciplinary Liability of a Judge for a Legal Error: A Threat to Judicial Independence?. In: Pinto de Albuquerque, P., Wojtyczek, K. (eds) Judicial Power in a Globalized World. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20744-1_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20744-1_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20743-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20744-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)