In re Going, 99 N.Y.2d 121 (2002)

Judges are held to higher standards of conduct than the public, and removal from office is warranted when a judge’s actions constitute truly egregious misconduct that undermines public confidence in the judiciary.

Summary

This case involves a Family Court Judge, Robert N. Going, who was removed from office by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The charges stemmed from creating a hostile work environment, engaging in erratic behavior, and issuing an improper ex parte order. The Court of Appeals upheld the Commission’s decision, finding ample evidence of misconduct that detracted from the dignity of the office and disrupted court operations. The court emphasized that judges are held to a higher standard and that the judge’s actions, coupled with a lack of contrition, warranted removal to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.

Facts

Judge Going engaged in a romantic relationship with a court attorney and argued with her in open court. He created a hostile work environment for his law clerk, including interfering with her boyfriend’s employment. After the relationship ended, his behavior became erratic, including panic attacks that disrupted court operations. He also took hostile actions against the Chief Clerk. Judge Going also issued an ex parte order reinstating a friend’s driver’s license that had been suspended for failure to pay child support, despite knowing the individual was in arrears.

Procedural History

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct investigated Judge Going based on a complaint from the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge. The Commission filed a Formal Written Complaint containing two charges. After an evidentiary hearing, the Referee filed a report, and the Commission sustained both charges, directing removal from office. Judge Going sought review of the Commission’s determination in the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Commission lacked jurisdiction to investigate the ex parte order charge (Charge II) due to the absence of a separate written complaint regarding that specific instance of misconduct.

2. Whether the Commission’s determination to remove Judge Going from office was supported by the record and the law.

Holding

1. No, because Judge Going waived any objection to the scope of the inquiry by failing to object to it during his appearance before the commission and because the principal purposes of a complaint were satisfied.

2. No, because the record contained ample evidence of misconduct that detracted from the dignity of his office, disrupted the operations of the court, and constituted an abuse of his judicial and administrative power.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that Judge Going waived any objection to the Commission’s jurisdiction regarding Charge II by failing to object to the inquiry during his appearance. The court emphasized that the purposes of a complaint were satisfied because Judge Going was notified and had the opportunity to prepare. On the merits, the court found substantial evidence of misconduct, including creating a hostile work environment, erratic behavior, and the improper ex parte order. The court emphasized that judges are held to a higher standard of conduct than the general public. The court quoted Matter of Aldrich v State Commn. on Judicial Conduct, 58 NY2d 279, 283 stating “members of the judiciary are held to higher standards of conduct than members of the public at large and that relatively slight improprieties subject the judiciary as a whole to public criticism and rebuke”. The court found that Judge Going’s actions constituted “truly egregious” misconduct, warranting removal to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. The court also noted Judge Going’s lack of contrition and additional improprieties during the investigation exacerbated his misconduct.