In re LaBombard, 12 N.Y.3d 294 (2009)

A judge must avoid even the appearance of impropriety and should recuse themselves from cases where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, especially when family members or close associates are involved.

Summary

Justice LaBombard was found to have engaged in serious judicial misconduct by presiding over cases involving his step-grandchildren, intervening in a case involving his step-grandson pending in another court, presiding over a case involving the son of a former coworker, and improperly invoking his judicial status after a minor traffic accident. The New York Court of Appeals agreed with the Commission on Judicial Conduct’s recommendation that he be removed from office, emphasizing the importance of maintaining public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary and avoiding any appearance of favoritism or misuse of judicial office.

Facts

Justice LaBombard, a Town Justice since 1996, faced several charges of misconduct. These included presiding over a criminal trespass case involving his step-grandchildren, contacting another judge regarding a case involving his step-grandson, presiding over the arraignment of the son of a former coworker, and invoking his judicial status following a minor traffic accident. In the case involving his step-grandchildren, he adjourned the case without imposing a community service requirement initially offered by the prosecution. In the case of his step-grandson, he contacted the presiding judge and vouched for his character. Regarding the former coworker’s son, he released the defendant on his own recognizance after an ex parte communication with the defendant’s mother. After a minor car accident, he repeatedly identified himself as a judge to the other driver.

Procedural History

The Commission on Judicial Conduct filed a complaint against Justice LaBombard. After a hearing, the Referee sustained four charges of misconduct. The Commission recommended removal from office. Justice LaBombard sought review of the Commission’s determination by the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Justice LaBombard engaged in judicial misconduct by presiding over a case involving his step-grandchildren.
2. Whether Justice LaBombard engaged in judicial misconduct by contacting another judge regarding a case involving his step-grandson.
3. Whether Justice LaBombard engaged in judicial misconduct by presiding over the arraignment of the son of a former coworker and engaging in ex parte communications with the defendant’s mother.
4. Whether Justice LaBombard engaged in judicial misconduct by invoking his judicial status following a minor traffic accident.
5. Whether removal from office is the appropriate sanction for the sustained charges of judicial misconduct.

Holding

1. Yes, because handling a case involving family members creates an appearance of impropriety and undermines public confidence in the judiciary.
2. Yes, because intervention by a judge in proceedings involving family members pending in another court, particularly through ex parte contact, is improper.
3. Yes, because presiding over a case where the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, coupled with ex parte communications, creates an appearance of favoritism.
4. Yes, because invoking judicial status to influence or intimidate others is an improper use of the prestige of judicial office.
5. Yes, because given the seriousness of the transgressions, including intentional violations of recusal rules and misuse of judicial office, removal is the appropriate sanction.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that judges must conduct themselves in a manner that inspires public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity, fair-mindedness, and impartiality. The Court cited the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct, specifically sections 100.2(C), 100.3(B)(6), and 100.3(E)(1), which address lending the prestige of judicial office, ex parte communications, and disqualification based on potential impartiality. The Court found that Justice LaBombard’s actions in each instance violated these rules. “As a Judge, petitioner was under a duty to conduct himself in such a manner as to inspire public confidence in the integrity, fair-mindedness and impartiality of the judiciary” (Matter of Esworthy, 77 NY2d 280, 282 [1991]). Regarding the family matters, the court stated, “The handling by a judge of a case to which a family member is a party creates an appearance of impropriety as well as a very obvious potential for abuse, and threatens to undermine the public’s confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary” (Matter of Wait, 67 NY2d 15, 18 [1986]). Even without a specific request for favorable treatment, the intervention itself is misconduct. The ex parte communication and subsequent release of the former coworker’s son created an appearance of favoritism. Invoking his judicial status after the traffic accident was deemed an attempt to misuse his office for personal advantage. The Court concluded that removal was appropriate due to the seriousness of the misconduct and Justice LaBombard’s apparent failure to appreciate the impropriety of his actions, demonstrating “a willingness to misuse his judicial office for personal advantage—a quality that is antithetical to the judicial role.”