I.

INTRODUCTION

The Connecticut Judicial Review Council receives and investigates complaints about alleged misconduct, disability, or substance abuse of state judges, family support magistrates, and workers' compensation commissioners.

Every state has a body similar to the Council with the same goals. The purpose of the Council is to help enforce high standards of judicial conduct on and off the bench in order to preserve the integrity of the court system and promote public confidence in the courts. It is recognized that judges, family support magistrates, and workers' compensation commissioners must be free to exercise their discretion without fear of disciplinary proceedings. However, they also must be held accountable for misconduct.

II.

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL

Prior to 1969, the only remedies for misconduct were impeachment or removal by the Governor with the approval of two thirds of both the House of Representatives and Senate of the General Assembly. Consequently, there was no remedy for misconduct that did not rise to the level of impeachment or removal.

In 1969 the Legislature established a review council made up of judges and members of the public. Its jurisdiction extended only to judges. Its authority was limited to making recommendations as to reappointments and impeachment of judges. It could not sanction judges for misconduct.

A constitutional amendment was initiated by citizens in 1976, and the establishment of the Judicial Review Council was authorized by Article XI of Amendments to the Constitution of the State of Connecticut adopted on November 24, 1976. The amendment extended the power of removal or suspension to the Supreme Court and empowered the legislature to establish a Judicial Review Council. The Legislature acted in 1977 to carry out the Constitutional Amendment, and judges of all courts, except elected judges, were subject to new procedures. The Council, in its present form, commenced its activities effective January 1, 1978.

The Judicial Review Council has undergone several changes mandated by statute during the many years since its formation in 1977. The most significant of these changes occurring in various years were:

1. Inclusion of judges of the Appellate Court subject to the Council's authority (1985)

2. Inclusion of senior judges and state referees subject to the Council's authority (1986)

3. Inclusion of family support magistrates subject to the Council's authority (1989)

4. Inclusion of workers' compensation commissioners subject to the Council's authority (1992)

5. Establishment of a permanent office (1992)

6. Inclusion of a family support magistrate alternate member and a workers' compensation commissioner alternate member to the Council (1993)

7. Adoption of state regulations and rules of procedure (1994)

8. Addition of seven alternate members (two judges, two attorneys, three public) (1994)

9. Publication of an information handbook (1995)

10. Requirement that twelve members (three judge members, three attorney members, and six public members) constitute a quorum at any public hearing (1996)

11. Addition of four more alternate members (two family support magistrates and two workers' compensation commissioners) (1997)

12. Transfer of the requirement of judges and family support magistrates to file financial disclosure reports from the Judicial Review Council to the Office of the Chief Court Administrator (1997)

13. Development of a new, more comprehensive complaint form (see Appendix F) and accompanying brochure containing guidelines to assist in completing the form (1999)

Judicial Review Council staff also designed a website during this fiscal year which became available to the public in August 2007.

III.

JURISDICTION

The Council has jurisdiction over justices of the Supreme Court, judges of the Appellate Court and Superior Court, senior judges, judge referees, workers' compensation commissioners, and family support magistrates. The Council has no jurisdiction over probate judges, small claims magistrates, motor vehicle magistrates, attorneys, prosecutors, or court clerks.

The conduct of judges and family support magistrates is governed by the Code of Judicial Conduct. (See Appendix C)

The conduct of workers' compensation commissioners is governed by the Code of Ethics for Workers' Compensation Commissioners. (See Appendix D)

The Council's jurisdiction over subject matter is limited to the following areas:

• Conduct prejudicial to the impartial and effective administration of justice which brings the judicial office in disrepute
  
• Wilful violation of the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct
  
• Wilful and persistent failure to perform his or her duty
• Neglectful or incompetent performance of his or her duty
• Temperament that adversely affects the orderly carriage of justice
• Use of his or her office for financial gain
  
• Final conviction of a felony or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude
• Wilful failure to file a financial statement or the filing of a fraudulent financial statement required under Section 51-46a of the Connecticut General Statutes
  
• Inability to fully perform his or her duties due to impairment by mental infirmity or mental illness, drug dependency, and/or alcohol addiction

In other words, a person within the jurisdiction of the Council who wilfully and persistently does not perform his or her judicial or magisterial duties, or performs them neglectfully or incompetently, or otherwise conducts his personal life in such a way as to give the office an undesirable image, may become the subject of a complaint. Unless a complaint contains facts of misconduct in one of these areas, the Council must dismiss it as being outside the scope of its subject matter jurisdiction.

IV.

NON-JURISDICTION

More than one-half of all complaints do not deal with misconduct. Many complaints attack decisions on trial proceedings, substantive legal positions, or final judgments. Often the complainant turns to the Council to have a decision reversed, something that only an Appellate Court can do. Some examples of conduct complained of which are not within the Council's jurisdiction involve:

• Protection of defendants' rights in criminal matters
  
• Suggestions by a judge of a specific basis of settlement in pre-trial procedures
  
• Decisions determining what evidence is admissible
  
• Setting of bail bonds
  
• Determination, according to particular standards, of custody and support in divorce proceedings
  
• Exercise of discretion
  
• Sentencing

V.

PROCEDURE

Any person can present a complaint to the Council by obtaining a complaint form from any Superior Court clerk's office, by writing or calling the Judicial Review Council office, or by downloading the complaint form on the Council's website at www.ct.gov/jrc. The complaint, which must be in writing, sworn to and signed, must state facts that substantiate the alleged misconduct.

The complaint must be against a person who is a judge, family support magistrate, or workers' compensation commissioner within the jurisdiction of the Council.

Each complaint is screened by the staff to determine that the above requirements are met. If the complaint is against a person not under the jurisdiction of the Council, the complaint is directed to the proper agency.

Every complaint is investigated by the Council, except any barred by the one-year statute of limitation.

If the Council determines that a complaint cannot be decided on the information supplied by the complainant, it may request further information, court transcripts and/or audio tapes, or obtain interviews with witnesses.

The judge, family support magistrate, or workers' compensation commissioner complained against may file a reply to the complaint together with any evidence or documentation he or she wishes to include.

If, after investigation, the Council determines that no misconduct has occurred, it dismisses the complaint.

If the Council determines that misconduct may have occurred, it schedules a confidential probable cause hearing. At such a hearing, the executive director produces, through witnesses and documents, evidence relevant to the alleged misconduct. The judge, family support magistrate, or workers' compensation commissioner has the right to be present, to be represented by counsel, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and submit any evidence in defense of the complaint.

If the Council finds probable cause, the Council is required under Connecticut General Statutes Section 51-51l(c) to hold a hearing concerning the conduct or complaint. All such hearings are required to be open to the public. Again, the judge may appear and is entitled to counsel, to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses.

In a litigated matter, whether it be a confidential probable cause hearing or a full public hearing, the executive director represents the Council. In all its determinations, however, the Council acts alone, without the presence of the executive director or any other non-member.

On the conclusion of the testimony, arguments and briefs, if any, the Council may take any of seven actions allowed by law:

1. Publicly censure the judge, family support magistrate, or workers' compensation commissioner

2. Suspend the judge, family support magistrate, or workers' compensation commissioner for a definite term not to exceed one year

3. Refer the matter to the Supreme Court with a recommendation that the judge or family support magistrate be suspended for a period longer than one year

4. Refer the matter to the Supreme Court with a recommendation that the judge or family support magistrate be removed from judicial office

5. Refer the matter to the Governor with a recommendation that the workers' compensation commissioner be removed from office

6. Exonerate the judge, family support magistrate, or workers' compensation commissioner from all charges

7. Admonish the judge, family support magistrate, or workers' compensation commissioner and recommend a change in judicial conduct or practice, if necessary, if the Council finds that judicial conduct under Connecticut General Statutes Section 51-51i has not occurred, but he or she has acted in a manner which gives the appearance of impropriety or constitutes an unfavorable judicial practice

The public censure is filed with the Chief Justice, the Chief Court Administrator, and the joint standing committee on judiciary and, after time to appeal has expired, published in the Connecticut Law Journal.

If an admonishment is issued, the complainant is notified, but the substance of the admonishment is not disclosed. If an admonishment is issued, Connecticut General Statutes Section 51-51l(b) requires the Council to also notify the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to the judiciary that an admonishment was issued and provide said committee with the substance of the admonishment, including copies of the complaint file.

VI.

MEMBERSHIP AND STAFF

The Council consists of the following:

Three Superior or Appellate Court judge members
Three attorney members
Six public members
Two alternate judge members
Two alternate attorney members
Three alternate public members
Three alternate family support magistrate members
Three alternate workers' compensation commissioner members

Whenever the Council considers a complaint against a workers' compensation commissioner member, an alternate workers' compensation commissioner member replaces a judge member. Likewise, when the Council considers a complaint against a family support magistrate, an alternate family support magistrate member replaces a judge member.

At the present time terms of regular members are four years. A regular member may not serve consecutive terms.

Alternate members serve terms of three years and cannot serve consecutive terms as an alternate member. An alternate member could, at the termination of his or her term, be appointed a regular member.

The Chairperson and members are appointed by the Governor with the approval of the Legislature.

The names of the present regular and alternate members of the Council and the dates their terms expire are listed on the following page.

REGULAR MEMBERS	(Four-year terms)	DATE TERM EXPIRES
Judge Members:
Honorable Patrick L. Carroll, III		12/1/07
Honorable Christine E. Keller		12/1/08
Honorable Susan S. Reynolds		12/1/10
Attorney Members:
G. Kenneth Bernhard		12/1/10
Brian R. Farnen		12/1/08
Raymond M. Hassett (Chairman)		12/1/07
Public Members:
Carlos A. del Portal		12/1/07
Susanne N. Donohue		12/1/07
Thomas H. Ferguson		12/1/08
Caren Kittredge		12/1/08
Sharon B. Murray		12/1/10
Joe Townsley		12/1/10
ALTERNATE MEMBERS:	(Three-year terms)	DATE TERM EXPIRES
Family Support Magistrate Members:
Richard G. Adams		12/1/09
Katherine Y. Hutchinson		12/1/09
Linda T. Wihbey		12/1/09
Workers' Compensation Commissioner Members:
Scott A. Barton		12/1/09
Stephen B. Delaney		12/1/09
Nancy E. Salerno		12/1/09
Judge Members:
Honorable Taggart D. Adams		12/1/09
Honorable E. Curtissa R. Cofield		12/1/09
Attorney Members:
Mercedes G. Alonzo		12/1/09
Cathryn A. Reynolds		12/1/09
Public Members:
Linda S. Campanella		12/1/09
Lori Littmann		12/1/09
Vacancy		12/1/09

The staff of the Council consists of Barbara J. Elgan, full-time Executive Secretary, and Peter A. Clark, part-time Executive Director.

When the services of an investigator are required, they are contracted out.

The Council regularly meets at its office on the third Wednesday of each month (subject to change due to conflicts). During this reporting period, the Council held ten regular meetings.

VII.

STATISTICAL REPORT OF ACTIVITIES
July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007

A.	Conduct Complaints
	1.	Number of conduct complaints pending at beginning of period		12
	2.	Number of conduct complaints received during period		111
	3.	Number of conduct complaints considered during period		123
	4.	Number of conduct complaints disposed of during period		118
	5.	Number of conduct complaints pending at end of period		5
	6.	Disposition of conduct complaints:
		a.	Dismissed after investigation	99
		b.	Dismissed as being barred by statute of limitation	14
		c.	Dismissed due to death of respondent	2
		d.	Withdrawal of complaint by complainant	0
		e.	Private admonishment after investigation	0
		f.	Exonerated after public hearing	0
		g.	Public censure ordered after public hearing	0
		h.	Suspension less than 1 year ordered after public hearing	3
		i.	Recommendation of suspension of more than 1 year after public hearing	0
		j.	Recommendation of removal after public hearing	0
		k.	Dismissed due to resignation of respondent	0
	7.	Total conduct dispositions		118
B.	Disability Retirement
	1.	Number of cases pending at beginning of period		0
	2.	Number of cases received during period		0
	3.	Number of cases considered during period		0
	4.	Number of cases disposed of during period		0
	5.	Disposition of Disability Retirement cases:
		a.	Retirement granted	0
		b.	Retirement refused	0
		c.	Disposed of by resignation of applicant	0
	6.	Number of Disability Retirement cases pending at end of period		0
C.	Mental Illness, Mental Infirmity, Drug Dependency or Alcohol Addiction
	1.	Number of cases pending at beginning of period		0
	2.	Number of cases received during period		0
	3.	Number of cases considered during period		0
	4.	Number of cases disposed of during period		0
	5.	Number of cases pending at end of period		0
D.	Miscellaneous
	1.	Number of Probable Cause Hearings		2
	2.	Number of Public Hearings		3
	3.	Number of Judges represented in conduct complaints disposed of		115
	4.	Number of Family Support Magistrates represented in conduct complaints disposed of		3
	5.	Number of Workers' Compensation Commissioners represented in conduct complaints disposed of		0
E.	Appeals
	1.	Number of Connecticut Supreme Court decisions during period		0
	2.	Number of Appeals to the Connecticut Supreme Court		1
F.	Complainant Source - Disposed Complaints
	1.	Pro Se Litigant		39
	2.	Litigant		63
	3.	Relative		12
	4.	Attorney		1
	5.	Judicial Review Council		3

Note: Inmates of Correctional Institutions accounted for 39 of the complaints.

G.	Court Source - Disposed Complaints
	1.	Criminal		48
	2.	Civil		30
	3.	Family		24
	4.	Juvenile		11
	5.	Family Support Magistrate		3
	6.	Non Court		2
H.	Nature of Allegations Contained in Complaints Disposed of
	1.	Bias/discrimination/prejudice/partiality (gender, racial, general)		31
	2.	Wrong decisions/rulings/orders		27
	3.	Violation of constitutional rights		18
	4.	Denial of motions		11
	5.	Temperament/demeanor		8
	6.	Allowed false testimony		7
	7.	Improper comments		6
	8.	Incompetence		6
	9.	Legal errors		6
	10.	Failure to perform the duties of a judge		5
	11.	Intimidation, disrespect		5
	12.	Failure to comply with the law		4
	13.	Refusal to appoint counsel		4
	14.	Coercion/ threats		3
	15.	Denial of appeal		3
	16.	Abusive/harsh treatment		3
	17.	Failure to issue arrest warrant		3
	18.	Failure to rule on pleadings		3
	19.	Procedural errors		3
	20.	Abuse of authority		2
	21.	Conflict of interest		2
	22.	Denial of evidence		2
	23.	Denial of fee waiver		2
	24.	Denial of right to be heard		2
	25.	Failure to recuse		2
	26.	Failure to maintain proper courtroom decorum		2
	27.	Issuance of unjust arrest warrant		2
	28.	Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct/Connecticut General Statutes		2
	29.	Wrongful incarceration		2
	30.	Allowed unqualified witness to testify		1
	31.	Conspiracy with government officials		1
	32.	Corruption		1
	33.	Delay in prosecution		1
	34.	Denial of new counsel		1
	35.	Excessive sentence		1
	36.	Excessive bail		1
	37.	Failure to respect and comply with the law and act in a manner promoting public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary		1
	38.	Failure to control court proceedings		1
	39.	Failure to discharge administrative responsibilities		1
	40.	Failure to subpoena a witness		1
	41.	Failure to timely file income tax returns		1
	42.	Failure to understand case		1
	43.	Improper legal advise to other party's counsel		1
	44.	Improper jury instructions		1
	45.	Improper transfer of a case		1
	46.	Misplaced court file		1
	47.	Misstated evidence in ruling		1
	48.	Performed like a prosecutor		1

Note: Totals exceed number of complaints disposed of because many complaints contain more than one type of allegation.

I.	Reasons for Dismissal
1.	No factual basis	93
2.	Appealable issues	33

Note: Totals exceed number of complaints disposed of because some complaints were dismissed for more than one reason.

J.	Number of Judges, Workers' Compensation Commissioners, and Family Support Magistrates who were within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Review Council as of June 30, 2007.
	1.	Supreme Court Justices	6
	2.	Supreme Court Senior Justices	1
	3.	Appellate Court Judges	10
	4.	Senior Appellate Judges	0
	5.	Senior Judges	6
	6.	Superior Court Judges	178
	7.	Judge Trial Referees	92
	8.	Workers' Compensation Commissioners	15
	9.	Per Diem Workers' Compensation Commissioners	2
	10.	Family Support Magistrates	9
	11.	Family Support Magistrate Referees	1
		Total	320