DUI Lawyers Directory. Search for a dui lawyer near you. Operating a vehicle while drinking could cause judicial actions.
 Zip Code Search for DUI Lawyers
Defending Alleged Drunk Driving Criminal Acts Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Membership at DUI Defenders Discuss issues related to dui/dwi/owi Contact Us about a DUI Lawyer
facebook.com/MyDUI

  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

IN THE MATTER OF BRUCE

12/11/1989

Submitted November 13, 1989.


Decided December 11, 1989.
Respondent, a Spartanburg County Magistrate, is charged with judicial misconduct, regarding a conviction on July 14, 1989, wherein the Respondent plead guilty to obstruction of justice in the Court of General Sessions in Spartanburg and was sentenced to ten years, suspended upon five years probation. The plea was a result of the Respondent being indicted in Spartanburg County for communicating a bribery offer to a South Carolina State Trooper to dismiss a warrant for
Prior to the filing of a formal Complaint, and the convening of a Panel of Hearing Masters, the Respondent submitted a Waiver and Consent offering therein to consent and agree to a finding by the Judicial Standards Commission of judicial misconduct, upon condition that a recommendation be made of a public reprimand. In transmitting the Waiver and Consent to the Commission, the Respondent also sent a personal letter asking that the Commission consider recommending a private reprimand. The full Commission at its regular meeting accepted the proposal, made a finding of misconduct on behalf of the Respondent, and recommended to this Court the imposition of a public reprimand. No Petition to reject or modify the recommendation of the Commission was filed by the Respondent nor the Examiner.


Respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires that a judge should observe high standards of conduct "so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary be preserved." Further, the Respondent violated Canon 2 of that Code, which requires that a "judge should respect and comply with the law. . . ." We agree with the full Commission that the conduct of the Respondent has brought the judiciary into disrepute, and contradicts the very goal of the judiciary which is to seek justice. We further agree, that the Respondent is, therefore, also guilty of misconduct under Section 1(b)(2) of the Rule of Judicial Discipline and Standards, Supreme Court Rule 34. He stands publicly reprimanded.


Public reprimand.


Page 1 

South Carolina DUI Attorneys    DUI Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites  |  Draeger FAQ
SiteMap | DUI Blog | DUI Lawyers | DUI Attorneys | Trading Partners | Member Agreement | Terms of Service
Attorneys Click Here | DUI Case Laws | FAQ | DUI Forum | Directory of DUI Attorneys | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2004. “DUI Defenders”. All rights reserved.