Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. JD No. 1 September Term, 2007

IN RE: HONORABLE BRUCE S. LAMDIN

Bell, C.J. *Raker Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ.

Opinion by Raker, J.

Filed: May 13, 2008 *Raker, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, she also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion.

The Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities (Commission), acting pursuant to a Petition for Disciplinary Action filed by special investigative counsel, and after a hearing, recommended that respondent, Judge Bruce S. Lamdin, be suspended for a period of thirty days without pay. Respondent was appointed as an Associate Judge of the District Court of Maryland in October, 2002. This is his first disciplinary action and there have been no other disciplinary charges filed against him.

I. Procedural Background The Commission filed charges against respondent stemming from citizen complaints based upon public comments he made in the courtroom. The Commission charged respondent with violation of Canons 1,1 2A, 3B(4), 3B(5), 6A and 6B of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. Md. Rule 16-813. Canon 1, Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary, reads as follows: "An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge shall observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved. The provisions of this Code are to be construed and applied to further that objective."

Respondent has not excepted to any of the findings or conclusions of the Commission. Accordingly, we do not consider whether Canon 1 is a rule of conduct under which a judge may be disciplined, or is instead one which sets out the ultimate objective of preservation of the integrity and independence of the judiciary. See In re Schenck, 870 P.2d 185, 214 (Or. 1994) (Unis, J. dissenting). Moreover, the Commission found that respondent violated other canons as charged.
-1-

1

Canon 2, Avoidance of Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety, in pertinent part, reads as follows: "A. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary." Canon 3, Performance of Judicial Duties, reads, in pertinent part, as follows: "A. GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office diligently, impartially, and without having or manifesting bias or prejudice, including bias or prejudice based on age, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. B. ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES. *** (4) A judge shall be dignified. (5) A judge shall be courteous to and patient with jurors, lawyers, litigants, witnesses, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity and shall require similar conduct of lawyers and of court officials, staff, and others subject to the judge's direction and control." (emphasis retained)." Canon 6, Compliance, states as follows: "A. COURTS. This Code applies to each judge of the Court of Appeals, the Court of Special Appeals, a circuit court, the District Court, or an orphans' court. B. CONSTRUCTION. Violation of any of the Canons by a judge may be regarded as conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice within the meaning of Maryland Rule 16-803 (j), as to the Commission on Judicial Disabilities. . . ." The Commission held a hearing on June 18, 2007. On that day, respondent and special investigative counsel submitted to the Commission a stipulated verdict sheet, indicating that

-2-

respondent admitted that his conduct violated all the charges. Respondent and special investigative counsel filed stipulated proposed findings and proposed sanction, urging that "the Commission find by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Lamdin has committed sanctionable conduct,[2] and issue a Public Reprimand . . . ." At the Commission hearing, respondent appeared with counsel and the Commission was represented by special investigative counsel. Directed towards mitigation and sanction, respondent testified before the Commission, filed letters from friends, professional associates and colleagues attesting to his good character and intentions and change of attitude, and a letter he wrote personally. The Commission filed an opinion, setting forth findings of fact, conclusions of law and a recommended sanction, finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent violated the Canons of Judicial Conduct, as charged, and thereby committed sanctionable conduct as defined by Maryland Rule 16-803(j). The Commission rejected the parties stipulation for a reprimand and instead recommended that respondent complete a consecutive thirty (30) working day suspension without pay within 90 days of the date of the decision of the Court of Appeals. Neither party excepted to the Commission's opinion. Upon receipt of the Commission's Opinion, this Court set the matter for a hearing.
2

Maryland Rule 16-803(j) defines "sanctionable conduct" as follows:

"`Sanctionable conduct' means misconduct while in office, the persistent failure by a judge to perform the duties of the judge's office, or conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice. A judge's violation of any of the provisions of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct promulgated by Rule 16-813 may constitute sanctionable conduct."
-3-

As we have indicated, respondent did not except to the Commission's findings or conclusions. Instead, he filed a "Waiver of Hearing and Submittal" with this Court, arguing that the Commission's recommendation was extraordinary and might result in unintended consequences, such as a reduction of benefits. Respondent argued, in addition, that his efforts at remediation warranted the imposition of a lesser sanction. This Court issued an Order scheduling a hearing for respondent to show cause why the Court should not impose the sanction recommended by the Commission or any other sanction permitted by law.3 Respondent filed a memorandum in response to the Order, arguing that he had shown remorse and had embarked upon a course of corrective conduct, that he had been subject to "unflattering" portrayals by the news media and the public record of the Commission, that a suspension would increase the burden on other District Court judges, and that the Commission's consideration of his perceived demeanor at the hearing was improper. Pursuant to Article IV,

Download In Re: Honorable Bruce S. Lamdin.pdf

Maryland Law