 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Lockwood12/13/1990
propriety. We agree with the Commission that the record clearly and convincingly supports the allegations set forth in Count 6.
Appropriate Sanction
We follow the recommendation by the Commission on Judicial Conduct that respondent be publicly censured. We do not consider suspension or removal under Ariz. Const. art. 6.1, § 4 because respondent was not renominated for office in the primary election. In censuring respondent, we do not intend to minimize the seriousness of his misconduct. One of a judge's most critical responsibilities is to oversee his court's operation, in order that the protections of our Constitution and statutes are afforded to all litigants. We recognize that an overburdened court, such as respondent's, must take steps to improve the efficiency of its operations; however, the steps may not compromise a defendants' rights or neglect the judge's administrative responsibilities. Additionally, we emphasize
that members of the judiciary are required to exercise restraint in their dealings with other public officers and officials to avoid the appearance of impropriety, which resulted from respondent's actions in connection with the investigation of his son.
Respondent is formally and publicly censured for the reasons contained in this opinion. Ariz. Const. art. 6.1, § 4. Respondent is assessed costs and attorneys' fees in the amount of $6,702.54.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|