United States v. Seefried

Classification/Desc

Year Corpus Source or Source Type Excerpt of Concordance Line Contextual summary

ription

As we said in both Benoit and Ross , in determin

Maine, In the Matter of ing appropriate disciplinary sanctions , we must Considering appropriate sanctions for

Ronald L. KELLAM, be careful to assure the orderly administration of a judge whose discourtesy to parties Judicial discipline,

1986 COCAP 503 A.2d 1308 justice in the public interest . rose to violation of the Judicial Code. judicial proceeding

We agree with the finding of the hearing board th

at the respondent ’s conduct violated C.R.C.P. 24

1.6 and the following disciplinary rules in the Co

de of Professional Responsibility : DR 1 -

102 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( a lawyer shall not violate a disci

plinary rule ) ; DR 6 -

101 ( A ) ( 2 ) ( a lawyer shall not handle a legal

matter without preparation adequate in the circu

mstances ) ; DR 6 -

101 ( A ) ( 3 ) ( a lawyer shall not neglect a legal

matter entrusted to him ) ; DR 7 -

101 ( A ) ( l ) ( a lawyer shall not intentionally fa

il to seek the lawful objectives of his client ) ; D

R7-

Colorado, The PEOPLE 101 ( A ) ( 3 ) ( a lawyer shall not prejudice or d

of the State of Colorado, amage his client during the course of the professi

Complainant, v. Thomas onal rela tionship ) ; and DR 1 -

H. MAY, Attorney- 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) ( a lawyer shall not engage in con Finding lawyer's failure to apprise

Respondent, 745 P.2d duct that is prejudicial to the administration of ju client of case status violated state Discipline of lawyer,

1987 COCAP 218 stice ) . professional conduct rules. judicial proceeding

Texas, Phil P. O’NEAL,

Appellant, v. The Nevertheless , there comes a time when the order

COUNTY OF SAN ly administration of justice requires that the appe Discussing failure of court reporter

SABA, Appellee, 577 llate process be not delayed further by the absenc timely to prepare statement of facts Judicial proceeding,

1979 COCAP S.W.2d 795 e of the statement of facts . needed for appeal. not delaying

Michigan, PEOPLE v.

KAMIN; PEOPLE v. In Rich , this Court refused retroactive applicatio

AUSTIN; PEOPLE v. n of a jury instruction on the defense of intoxicati

CARGILL; PEOPLE v. on and specific intent because of the marked effe

HARRISON, 405 Mich. ct on the administration of justice in view of the Discussing reasons for a new rule's Judicial proceeding,

1979 COCAP 482 profound reliance on the old rule . exclusively prospective application jury instruction

Illinois,

INTERNATIONAL Although summary judgment is an important tool

SOCIETY FOR in the administration of justice and its use encou

KRISHNA raged in proper cases ( Fooden v. Board of Gover

CONSCIOUSNESS, nors ( 1971 ) , 48 Ill. 2d 580 , 586 , 272 N.E. 2d

INC., Plaintiff- 497 ; Allen v. Meyer ( 1958 ) , 14 Ill. 2d 284 , 29

Appellant, v. THE 2 , 152 N.E. 2d 576 ) , courts must remain cautio

CITY OF EVANSTON us not to preempt the right to trial by jury where

et al., Defendants- a material dispute may exist ( Anderson v. Doric

Appellees, 53 Ill. App. k ( 3rd Dist . 1975 ) , 28 Ill . App . 3d 225 , 227 , Discussing impropriety of grant of

1977 COCAP 3d 443 327 N.E. 2d 541 ) . summary judgment below. Judicial proceeding

Because the issue has potentially far -

D. Mass., UNITED reaching ramifications with respect to the orderl Asserting the ability of the court to

STATES of America v. y and effective administration of justice in the di defer ruling on an evidentiary motion Judicial proceeding,

John R. BARLETTA, strict court , it is appropriate that this court detail against Government's contrary judicial power &

1980 COCAP 500 F. Supp. 739 the basis for its determination . argument. prerogative

The imposition of the ethical obligation of honest

y upon lawyers under DR 1 -

Kansas, State of Kansas, 102 ( A ) ( 4 ) and subsequent discipline for viol

Petitioner, v. J. R. ation of the rule is permissible and may be neces Discussing tenstion between ethical

Russell, Respondent, sary in the interests of the administration of justi rules and lawyer's First Amendment

1980 COCAP 227 Kan. 897 ce . rights. Discipline of lawyer

A literal interpretation of Article I , § 22 of the C

onstitution of North Dakota would wreak havoc

with established judicial practices in that it would

N. Dakota, KFGO allow public access to all phases of the administr

RADIO, INC. and ation of justice , including chambers ’ conference

WDAY, Inc., Plaintiffs s , plea bargaining and settlement conferences , a

and Appellees, v. doption proceedings , those juvenile proceedings Discussing ramifications of state Judicial proceeding,

Cynthia ROTHE, 298 presently closed , grand jury proceedings , and ap constitutional provision concerning judicial power &

1980 COCAP N.W.2d 505 pellate court conferences . public's access to proceedings. prerogative

“ In a proceeding in which the Commission finds

that : ( 1 ) the subject matter is generally known

to the public ; ( 2 ) there is broad public interest ;

( 3 ) confidence in the administration of justice i

s threatened due to lack of public information co

ncerning the status and conduct of the proceedin

g ; and ( 4 ) the public interest in maintaining co

nfidence in the judicial office and the integrity of

the administration of justice requires that some o

r all aspects of such proceeding should be publicl

y conducted or otherwise reported or disclosed to

the public , the requirement of confidentiality m

ay , to the extent determined by the Commission

, be modified with respect to said proceeding ; an

Cal., Mosk v. Superior d , after completion of the investigation , a public Discussing when the Commission on

Ct. of Los Angeles hearing shall be held and shall be publicly condu Judicial Performance may allow Judicial proceeding,

1979 COCAP Cnty, 25 Cal. 3d 474 cted . disciplinary hearings to be public. discipline, judge

( 3 ) The misbehavior of any person in the presen

Pa., Smith v. Mason, ce of the court , thereby obstructing the administr Discussing when a person may be Judicial proceeding,

1984 COCAP 328 Pa. Super. 314 ation of justice . found in criminal contempt of court. contempt

After reviewing the record , we conclude that cau

se for discipline has been established and a publi

c censure is the appropriate discipline . In the for

mal complaint you were charged with violating R

ule 241 ( B ) , C.R. C.P. , and the Code of Profes

sional Responsibility , DR 1 -

102 ( A ) ( 5 ) , DR 6 -

101 ( A ) ( 3 ) , and DR 7 -

101 ( A ) ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) , by reason of the followi

ng acts : ( 1 ) neglecting a legal matter entrusted t

o you ; ( 2 ) failing to carry out a contract of emp

loyment entered into with a client for professiona

l services ; ( 3 ) causing damage or prejudice to a

client during the course of your professional rela Concluding public censure was the

Colo., People v. tionship ; and ( 4 ) engaging in conduct that was appropriate discipline for a dilatory Judicial proceeding,

1981 COCAP Gottsegen, 623 P.2d 878 prejudicial to the administration of justice . and otherwise negligent attorney. discipline, lawyer

It was for this reason that a separate standard for

misbehavior , " conduct prejudicial to the admini

stration of justice by bringing the judicial office i

nto disrepute , ” was deleted by the Senate Judici

DDC, Hastings v. ary Committee for fear that such a general disrep Limiting a statute controlling

Judicial Conf. of the ute standard directly embodied in the statute coul censurable judicial behavior to that

United States, 593 F. d be used to intrude into a judge ’s personal life which would interfere with judge's Judicial proceeding,

1984 COCAP Supp. 1371 unrelated to his or her judicial conduct . duties or taint public's perception. discipline, judges

The proper administration of justice necessitates

Ind., In re Colestock, the maintenance of independent professional jud Finding that a lawyer violated rules of Judicial proceeding,

1984 COCAP 461 N.E.2d 137 gment by a lawyer on behalf of his client . professional responsibility. discipline, lawyer

Wash., In re Further , the holding of a private hearing would h

Disciplinary Proceeding ave damaged the public 's confidence in the admi

against Mark S. Demig, nistration of justice and led to suspicions as to th Finding appropriate the procedure of a

1987 COCAP 108 Wash. 2d 82 e objectiveness of the hearing . judicial conduct proceeding below. Judicial proceeding

The Independent Counsel relies on a single quota

tion plucked from Blackmer v. United States , 28

4 U.S. 421 , 438 , 52 S.Ct . 252 , 255 , 76 L.Ed .

375 ( 1932 ) : " one of the duties which the citize

n owes to his government is to support the admin

istration of justice by attending its courts and givi Rejecting government's request to

DDC, In re Sealed Case, ng his testimony whenever he is properly summo subpoena potentially self- Judicial proceeding,

1987 COCAP 832 F.2d 1268 ned . " incriminating documents. court procedure

In order to promote the expeditious administratio

N.C., LEA COMPANY n of justice , we elect to exercise the rarely used

v. NORTH CAROLINA general supervisory powers given this Court in ar

BOARD OF ticle IV , section 12 ( 1 ) of the Constitution of N Judicial proceeding,

TRANSPORTATION, orth Carolina and choose to address two collatera powers &

1986 COCAP 317 N.C. 254 l issues not raised by the parties . Guiding determination of damages. prerogatives

On the other hand , there are other dining occasio

ns that support activities germane to the State Ba

r ’s performance of its duties in the improvement

Mich., Falk v. State Bar of the administration of justice and the advance Assessing propriety of judges at Bar association

1981 COCAP of Mich., 411 Mich. 63 ment of jurisprudence . various social functions. regulating judges

The concluding clause of the statute penalizes an

yone who “ corruptly ... endeavors to influence , Outlining provisions of s. 1503 against

E.D. Va., U.S. v. Caron, obstruct , or impede , the due administration of j improper influence of witness, juror, Judicial proceeding,

1982 COCAP 551 F. Supp. 662 ustice . ” or court official. perjury

The administration of justice would be greatly bu

rdened if required to accommodate separate trials

in all cases where multiple parties have participa

ted in a criminal offense and where one or more

have confessed to its commission . " State v. Fer

guson , 3 Wn . App . 898 , 906 , 479 P. 2d 114 (

Wash., State v. Samsel, 1970 ) , review denied , 78 Wn .2 d 996 ( 1971 ) Finding no error in refusal to grant Judicial proceeding,

1985 COCAP 39 Wash. App. 564 . motion to sever. court procedure

The committee found that respondent had violate Finding violation of professional rules

Pa., In Re Anonymous d D.R. 1 - requiring lawful behavior where

No. 60 D.B. 83, 33 Pa. 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) in that his conduct was prejudicia lawyer consumed drugs and consorted Judicial proceeding,

1984 COCAP D. & C.3d 187 l to the administration of justice . with drug dealers. discipline, lawyer

The Commission , based upon its findings of con

duct prejudicial to the administration of justice w

hich brings the judicial office into disrepute , as

Miss., In re Inquiry opposed to willful misconduct in office , has dete

Concerning County rmined that a public reprimand is an appropriate

Court Judge Kelly sanction finding that this case is somewhat simila Describing appropriate sanctions for

COLLINS, 524 So. 2d r to the trilogy of check collecting cases filed by t personal use of labor of county Judicial proceeding,

1987 COCAP 553 he Commission . prisoners. discipline, judge

In a mandamus action in which petitioner seeks t

o have discovery orders involving a claim of priv

ilege reviewed , we have held that review is appr

opriate when : “ ‘ ( 1 ) disclosure of the allegedly

privileged or confidential information renders i

mpossible any meaningful appellate review of th

e claim of privilege or confidentiality ; and ( 2 ) t

he disclosure involves questions of substantial im

portance to the administration of justice . ’ ” Unit

ed States v. West , 672 F. 2d 796 , 798 -

99 ( 10th Cir .1982 ) ( quoting United States v.

Winner , 641 F. 2d 825 , 830 ( 10th Cir .1981 ) (

quoting Iowa Beef Processors , Inc. v. Bagley , 6

C.A. 10, 01 F. 2d 949 ( 8th Cir .1979 ) ) , cert . denied , 4

Barclaysamerican Corp. 57 U.S. 1133 , 102 S.Ct . 2959 , 73 L.Ed .2 d 13 Judicial proceeding,

1984 COCAP v. Kane, 746 F.2d 653 50 ( 1982 ) . Refusing to breach judicial privilege. discipline, judge

It is very obvious that the public policy which re

nders the protection of witnesses necessary for th

e administration of justice must as a necessary co

nsequence involve that which is a step towards a Upholding absolute privilege for

nd is part of the administration of justice — nam defamatory statements in documents

Md., Adams v. Peck, ely , the preliminary examination of witnesses to prepared for use inlitigation but not Judical proceeding,

1980 COCAP 288 Md. 1 fínd out what they can prove . filed. procedure

In our judgment the court ’s order requiring appe

llant to wear a tie in court was a simple requirem

Ak., Friedman v. ent bearing a reasonable relationship to the prope Judicial proceeding,

District Court, 611 P.2d r administration of justice in that court . ” Id . at Upholding court's requirements of powers &

1980 COCAP 77 23 . minimum standards of dress. prerogatives

“ This was in disobedience to a lawful order , or

a command , if you want to call it that , of the co Reviewing proceedings below to find

Ga., Dowdy v. Palmour, urt , which tended to obstruct the administration in contempt attornets who did not Judicial proceeding,

1982 COCAP 164 Ga. App. 804 of justice . stand to reply to the court. discipline, lawyer

Finally , the Magistrate concluded that no conditi

on or combination of conditions would assure the

D. P.R., U.S. v. safety of the Government ’s witnesses and the c Judicial proceeding,

Acevedo-Ramos, 600 F. ommunity or insure the proper administration of Reviewing magistrate judge's pretrial powers &

1984 COCAP Supp. 501 justice in defendant ’s case . detention of witness. prerogatives

CITY CONSUMER

SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff, v. David G. Judicial proceeding,

HORNE, et al., Disqualification will not hinder the efficient adm Consdering motion to disqualify powers &

1983 COCAP Defendants inistration of justice counsel. prerogatives

The term " serious crime " shall include any felo

ny and any lesser crime a necessary element of w

hich , as determined by the statutory or common

law definition of such crime , involves improper

conduct as an attorney , interference with the ad

ministration of justice , false swearing , misrepre

sentation , fraud , willful failure to file income ta

x returns , deceit , bribery , extortion , misapprop

D.C., In re James D. riation , theft , or an attempt or a conspiracy or so Considering whether conduct of

Hutchinson, 518 A.2d licitation of another to commit a " serious crime . attorney was "serious crime" requiring Judicial proceeding,

1986 COCAP 995 ” disbarment. discipline, lawyer

Fla., Petition of

SUPREME COURT

SPECIAL

COMMITTEE FOR

LAWYER

DISCIPLINARY

PROCEDURES TO

AMEND Describing goals of program providing

INTEGRATION RULE, for deposition of clients' common trust

ARTICLE II AND The goals of the Court ’s program are to improve funds in savings accounts, interest

ARTICLE XI, 373 So. the administration of justice in this state and to e payable to programs designed to Judicial proceeding,

1979 COCAP 2d 1 xpand the delivery of legal services to the poor . benefit the public. policy

Although the court concluded that “ there was an

ample independent source of identification ” , it a

dded that it was so tainted by duress and imprope

D.C., U.S. v. Walton, r suggestiveness “ that it would . be an aberration Describing reasoning to forbid in- Judical proceeding,

1979 COCAP 411 A.2d 333 in the administration of justice ” to permit it . court identification. procedure

Courts exist for the administration of justice , an

d in the conduct of trials in general much must ,

of necessity , and in the very nature of things , be

left to the discretion of the court charged with th

e duty of administering justice , and having the i

Ala., Hall v. State, 377 nherent power to regulate such matters in the tria Explaining finding of no abuse of Judical proceeding,

1979 COCAP So. 2d 1123 l forum . discretion below. procedure

Therefore , we sustain charge II , but only insofa

r as it charges respondent with engaging in " con

duct that is prejudicial to the administration of ju

stice ” ( DR 1 -

102 [ A ] [ 5 ] ) and " [ c ] onceal [ ing ] or kno

wingly fail [ ing ] to disclose that which he is req Upholding sanction for failure to

N.Y., In re Devine, 128 uired by law to reveal ” ( DR 7 - comply with subpoena of documents Judicial proceeding,

1987 COCAP A.D.2d 1024 102 [ A ] [ 3 ] ) . as predicate to censure. discipline, lawyer

The hearing committee found that while respond

ent had not violated Disciplinary Rule 1 -

102 ( A ) ( 3 ) , which provides for illegal condu

ct involving moral turpitude , it did find that resp

ondent violated Rules of Professional Responsibi

lity D.R. 1 -

102 ( A ) ( 4 ) , in that he had engaged in conduc

t amounting to a form of misrepresentation , D.R

.1-

102 ( A ) ( 5 ) , in that he had engaged in conduc

t that is prejudicial to the administration of justic

e , and D.R. 1 -

102 ( A ) ( 6 ) , in that he had engaged in conduc Characterizing behavior of lawyer

Pa., In re Anonymous t that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice l who misrepresented facts in Judicial proceeding,

1978 COCAP No. 25 D.B. 77 aw : transaction. discipline, lawyer

" This is a serious crime because the true admini

C.A. 2, U.S. v. Assi, stration of justice is the cornerstone of all our lib

1984 COCAP 748 F.2d 62 erties . Judge providing jury instructions Judicial proceeding

N.Y., People v. Discussing incentives back of

Grissom, 128 Misc. 2d Requiring the party who wants the minutes to ord production requirements as between Judicial proceeding,

1985 COCAP 246 er them promotes the administration of justice . parties. procedure

Bredemann v. Bredemann , 253 Minn. 21 , 24 -

5 , 91 N.W. 2d 84 , 87 ( 1958 ) stated the rule th

at dissolution judgments may be set aside “ unde

r such circumstances as amount to a fraud on the

court and the administration of justice . * * * To

Minn., In re Marriage of be fraud on the court and the administration of ju

Adams, 393 N.W.2d stice , there must be found to be fraud on [ the wi Judicial proceeding,

1986 COCAP 508 fe ] . " Explaining controlling precedent. procedure

We are also conscious of undue delays in the ad

ministration of justice produced by unnecessary t

rials , and also of the crushing financial burdens Judicial proceeding,

C.A. 3, U.S. v. placed on the taxpayers who ultimately pay the e Rejecting judicial economy arguments powers &

1978 COCAP Moskow, 588 F.2d 882 xpenses of federal criminal litigation . against allowing conditional pleas. prerogatives

The obstruction of justice predicate contained in

paragraph 5 provides : It was part of the pattern o

f racketeering activity that in or about September

, 1981 , in the Eastern District of New York and

elsewhere , that the defendants , Joseph Massino

, a / k / a “ Joseph Messina , ” a / k / a “ Joseph

Massina , ” a / k / a “ Joey , ” and Salvatore Vital

e , a / k / a “ Sally , ” unlawfully , wilfully and kn

owingly would and did corruptly endeavor to infl

uence , obstruct and impede the due administrati

on of justice in that the defendants would and did

corruptly endeavor to counsel another person to

avoid service of a grand jury subpoena , in violati

S.D.N.Y., U.S. v. on of Title 18 , United States Code , Section 150 Judicial proceeding,

1986 COCAP Vitale, 635 F. Supp. 194 3 . Recalling the indictment. procedure

The defendant argued that he could not be guilty Rejecting argument that grand jury

E.D. Pa., U.S. v. of the offense because there was no judicial proc must have heard testimony or decided

Simmons, 444 F. Supp. eeding pending which could be equated to an “ a to issue subpoean before it could be

1978 COCAP 500 dministration of justice . ” "obstructed." Grand Jury

The complaint alleged that his described conduct

violated DR 6 -

101 ( A ) ( l ) and ( 3 ) , which provide that a la

wyer shall not handle a legal matter when he kno

ws , or should know , that he is not competent to

do so , and that he shall not neglect a legal matter

Ore., In re Complaint as entrusted to him . Violation of DR 1 -

to the Conduct of 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) was also charged . That rule forbi Assessing discipline of lawyer whose

RICHARD F. CRIST, ds a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudici inexperience made him incompetent

1984 COCAP Accused, 683 P.2d 85 al to the administration of justice . to handle a probate. Discipline, Lawyer

As the Supreme Court noted in Northern Pipelin

e Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. , s

upra , 458 U.S. 50 at 64 , n. 15 , 102 S.Ct . 2858

Bankr. N.D. Ga., In re at 2867 , n. 15 , 73 L.Ed .2 d 598 at 610 , n. 15 :

Seven Springs “ The Framers chose to leave to Congress the pre Explaining why courts cannot arrogate Judicial proceeding,

Apartments, Phase II, cise role to be played by the lower federal courts powers not given to them by powers &

1983 COCAP 33 B.R. 458 in the administration of justice . ” Congress. prerogatives

The accused ’s conduct with respect to his intera

Ore., In re: Complaint ction with Calvin and with Wade was boorish in

as to the Conduct of the extreme , but the issue is whether that conduc

WILLIAM C. t was “ prejudicial to the administration of justice Finding that badgering of clerks was

ROCHAT, Accused, ” or “ adversely reflects on his fitness to practice prejudicial to the administration of

1983 COCAP 295 Or. 533 law ” or both . justice. Discipline, Lawyer

Certainly this court recognizes the importance of

the orderly and efficient administration of justice

but acknowledges the court ’s primary responsib

ility of assuring individuals their rights to a prope

E.D. Va., U.S. v. Allen, rly selected jury , based upon the Batson standar Qualifiying criticisms of imprecion of Judicial proceeding,

1987 COCAP 666 F. Supp. 847 ds . guidance to lower courts. procedure

Mass., Michael J. Foley Although the single justice was not in error , it is

vs. Lowell Division of appropriate that we consider the matter under our

the District Court broader inherent common law and constitutional

Department, 398 Mass. powers to supervise the administration of justice Taking cognizance of a justice's

1986 COCAP 800 . conduct. Discipline, judge

But , while the mediation of courts is based upon

the principle of judicial impartiality , disintereste

dness , and fairness pervading the whole system

of judicature , so that courts may as near as possi

ble be above suspicion , there is , on the other sid

e , an important issue at stake : that is , that cause

s may not be unfairly prejudiced , unduly delayed

, or discontent created through unfounded charg

es of prejudice or unfairness made against the ju

Pa., Commonwealth v. dge in the trial of a cause . It is of great importan

Cherpes, 360 Pa. Super. ce to the administration of justice that such shoul Outlining the duties and discretion of

1987 COCAP 246 d not occur . a judge to vet his own imparitality. Discipline, judge

None of these cases contains any reasoned analys

is explaining why the “ administration of justice

” language should include bar proceedings . Upo

n reflection , however , we conclude that it does .

Ore., In re Complaint as Bar disciplinary proceedings , although sui gene Asserting that bar proceedings are

to the Conduct of ris in nature , strongly resemble judicial proceedi "adminsitration of justice" for

FERRIS F. BOOTHE, ngs in that they primarily involve factual adjudic purposes of rules of professional

1987 COCAP Accused, 740 P.2d 785 ations . conduct. Discipline, lawyer

C.A. 6, DETROIT

POLICE OFFICERS’

ASSOCIATION et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. see also President ’s Commission on Law Enforc Referencing

Coleman A. YOUNG, ement and the Administration of Justice , Task F President's

Mayor of the City of orce Report : The Police 169 , 174 ( 1967 ) ( citi Commission on Law

Detroit, et al., ng sur veys which found racially exclusionary hir Adducing evidence and citations that Enforcement and the

Defendants-Appellants, ing practices and racially discriminatory job assig hiring program did not violate Title Administration of

1979 COCAP 608 F.2d 671 nments in Detroit Police Department ) . VII. Justice

Not only did Respondent engage in conduct preju

dicial to the administration of justice in ignoring

the various inquiries sent to him by Bar Counsel

in the Jones Conservatorship case , but he made

D.C., In re Melvin J. arguments and gave testimony at the hearing in t

WASHINGTON, 489 his case that the Hearing Committee charitably c Characterizing conduct that resulted in

1985 COCAP A.2d 452 haracterized as “ frivolous . ” three months' suspension. Discipline, Lawyer

This is a distinction well recognized in Common

wealth v. Shawell , supra. , wherein the Supreme

Court said : “ The nature and character [ of the d

uty ] and the practice under the common law and

related statutes must control the interpretation of

the term ‘ court . ’ Is the duty of such nature as t

o require joint consideration by all the members

of the court ? . .

. The appointment and removal of public official

s..

.has far reaching consequences and should be ex

ercised by all the available judges of the tribunal

assembled . .

. ( but ) there are many things in connection with

Pa., Hamill Estate, 3 Pa. the general administration of justice ( that may b Judicial powers &

***1977 COCAP D. & C.3d 100 e done by fewer members ) . ” Elaborating on the court's functions. prerogatives

As pointed out in United States v. Tateo , supra ,

377 U.S. at 466 , the rule of United States v. Ball

is also grounded upon fairness in the administrat

Md., Sweetwine v. ion of justice , considering the interests of the pu Discussing the appropriate scope of Judicial proceeding,

1980 COCAP State, 288 Md. 199 blic as well as those of the defendant . grant of retrial. procedure

Asserting liability under disciplinary

Ore., In Re: Complaint rule for causing secreatary (also a

as to the conduct of Smith , by persuading his secretary to make a fal notary) to make a false

HECTOR E. SMITH, se acknowledgement , engaged in conduct that pr acknowledgement on a power of a

1981 COCAP Accused, 292 Or. 84 ejudicial to the administration of justice . attorney. Discipline, Lawyer

In re Murphy states that opinion work product “ c

an be discovered only in very rare and extraordin

ary circumstances . where weighty consideration

D. Minn., U.S. v. s of public policy and a proper administration of

Bonnell, 483 F. Supp. justice would militate against the nondiscovery o Discussing appropriate bounds of Judicial proceeding,

1979 COCAP 1070 f an attorney ’s mental impressions . ” privilege. procedure

As discussed in Section I.A , supra , by developi

ng a complete and searching record , the trial cou

C.A. 9, U.S. v. Kamer, rt can , and should , ensure the thor ough and eff Grounding the insufficieny of trial Judicial proceeding,

1986 COCAP 781 F.2d 1380 ective administration of justice . judge's process. procedure

Respondent is further charged with violating Dis

ciplinary Rules 1 -

102 ( A ) ( 1 ) , ( 4 ) , ( 5 ) and ( 6 ) , by engagin

g in conduct involy -

ing dishonesty , fraud , deceit or misrepresentati

on and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the ad Describing basis of liability for

Ind., In re McDaniel, ministration of justice which adversely reflects o knowingly false testimony to grand Perjury, Discipline,

1984 COCAP 470 N.E.2d 1327 n his fitness to practice law . jury. Lawyer

Section 53a -

147 , a part of our penal code , covers the crime

of bribery in broad terms and is not limited to the

Conn., State v. Carr, jr., administration of justice and attempts to influen Describing basis of liability for

1977 COCAP 172 Conn. 458 ce legislation . bribing a police officer. Law enforcement

The administration of justice under our adversary

system largely depends upon the public ’s ability

Md., Atty Gen'l of Md. to rely on the honesty of attorneys who are place

v. Waldron, 289 Md. d in a position of being called upon to conduct th Asserting and explaining judicial

1981 COCAP 683 e affairs of others both in and out of court . oversight of the bar. discipline, judges

The court notes that to try both of these charges s

eparately is not in the best administration of justi

ce , for among other reasons — a ) the cost and ti

me of two trials , and b ) inconvenience to witnes

Fla., State v. Patrus, 46 ses returning for a second trial , and c ) delay in u Finding trial court exceeded discretion Judicial proceeding,

1977 COCAP Fla. Supp. 19 ltimate resolve of the accusations . in requiring separate trials. procedure

We recognize that the fair and orderly administra

tion of justice requires that trial judges must have

reasonable discretion in dealing with errant juror

s who demonstrate their unwillingness to abide b

Miss., Jones v. State, y the instructions of the court , or other unanticip Defending discretion of judges to Judicial proceeding,

1981 COCAP 398 So. 2d 1312 ated occurrences which transpire during trials . discontinue trials. procedure

Finally , we do not believe that retroactive applic

ation of Brown will " ' cast substantial doubt upo

n the validity of numerous prior judgments , and

would impose a great burden on the administrati

Wash., In the Matter of on of justice by allowing many cases to be relitig

the Marriage of Joyce E. ated . .

Hilt, Respondent, and . " ' Milbradt , 103 Wn .2 d at 342 , quoting Ann

Daniel M. Hilt, ot. , Comment Note — Prospective or Retroactiv

Appellant, 41 Wash. e Operation of Overruling Decision , 10 A.L.R. 3 Deciding to allow retroactive

1985 COCAP App. 434 d 1371 , 1391 ( 1966 ) . application of new rule. Judicial proceedings

The general subject is , therefore , one in which t

he public [ has ] an interest , with regard to whic

h legislative action , in the interest of the public i

s absolutely necessary . . .

. [ The use of stenographers to report judicial pro

ceedings ] expedites judi cial procedure , econom

izes the time of public tribunals , and so promote

s the prompt administration of justice and reduce

Pa., Jones v. Montefiore s the amount of public moneys in that behalf exp Requiring county to pay costs of Judicial proceeding,

1980 COCAP Hosp., 418 A.2d 1361 ended stenography. procedure

Because the court could not sanction the method

by which the jury panel was formed , it reversed

the judgment below " in the exercise of our powe Quoting precedent in discussion of

Colo., Fields v. People, r of supervision over the administration of justice review of lower court's practices for Judicial proceeding,

1987 COCAP 732 P.2d 1145 in the federal courts . " calling potential jurors. procedure

The Bar states that acceptance of this petition wil

l not adversely affect the public interest , underm

Fla., Fla. Bar v. ine the purity of the courts , or hinder the admini Granting peition for leave to resign

Hawkins, 467 So. 2d stration of justice or the confidence of the public where attorney repeatedly failed in his

***1985 COCAP 998 in the legal profession . duties. Discipline, Lawyer

Md., ATTORNEY

GRIEVANCE

COMMISSION OF

MARYLAND v.

WILLIAM H. Quoting disciplinary rule as basis for

PATTISON, JR., 292 Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the admi liability of attorney who converted

1982 COCAP Md. 599 nistration of justice . client funds to his own use. Discipline, Lawyer

An attorney may also be disciplined for conduct

Kan., State v. Russell, which interferes with the processes of the admini Quoting bases of liabilty for attorney's

1980 COCAP 227 Kan. 897 stration of justice statements. Discipline, Lawyer

Rule 60 ( b ) , however , does not subsume or abr

D.C., Synanon ogate the court ’s “ inherent power to dismiss an

Foundation, Inc. v. action when a party has willfully deceived the co

Bernstein, 503 A.2d urt and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent w Assessing remedial options against

1986 COCAP 1254 ith the orderly administration of justice . ” attorney's fraud on the court. Discipline, Lawyer

He voiced concern that the holding of the majorit

y invites state and federal authorities to undermin

e the historic independence of the press by attem

pting to annex the journalistic profession as an in

vestigative arm of government which will in the l Discussing Supreme Court opinions

Oh., In re McAuley, 63 ong run harm rather than help the administration on the limited reporter's privilege from

1979 COCAP Ohio App. 2d 5 of justice . testifying before grand juries. Grand Jury

In determining the retroactivity of constitutional r

ules in criminal cases , the Supreme Court has co

nsidered three criteria : “ ‘ ( a ) the purpose to be

served by the new standards , ( b ) the extent of t

he reliance by law enforcement authorities on the

old standards , and ( c ) the effect on the admini

stration of justice of a retroactive application of t Reciting doctrinal basis for Judicial proceeding,

1985 COCAP C.A. 7, 757 F.2d 811 he new standards . ’ retroactivity determination. procedure

Neither good -

faith reliance by state or federal authorities on pr

ior constitutional law or accepted practice , nor s

evere impact on the administration of justice has

sufficed to require prospective application in thes

e circumstances . ” ( Williams v United States , 4 Reciting doctrinal basis for giving

N.Y., People v. Molina, 01 US 646 , 653 ; United States v Johnson , 457 retroactive effect to motion to Judicial proceeding,

1983 COCAP 121 Misc. 2d 483 US 537 . ) suppress evidence. evidence

The speedy and efficient administration of justic

E.D. Ark., Curl v. Gen. e requires , however , that ‘ [ m ] eritless claims .

Tele. Co. of the .. be disposed of at the first appropriate opportuni

Southwest, 669 F. Supp. ty . ’ Hungate v. United States , 626 F. 2d 60 , 62 Discussing the dismissal of a Judicial proceeding,

1987 COCAP 930 ( 8th Cir .1980 ) . complaint. procedure

He noted , for example , that “ although the rule i

s thought to deter unlawful police activity in part

through the nurturing of respect for Fourth Amen

dment values , if applied indiscriminately it may

C.A. 3, Morrison v. well have the opposite effect of generating disres

Kimmelman, 752 F.2d pect for the law and administration of justice . ” I Discussing Powell, J. on the

1985 COCAP 918 d . 428 U.S. at 491 , 96 S.Ct . at 3051 . exclusionary rule. Law enforcement

The majority would do well to bear in mind the c

omment of Judge Markell for this Court in the ca

se of In re Meyerson , 190 Md. 671 , 678 , 59 A.

2d 489 ( 1948 ) , quoted many times since then ,

to the effect that “ due regard for the administrati

Md., In re Application on of justice does not permit disbarment and rein

of Howard C., 286 Md. statement to be made mere adjuncts to reform sc Discussing timing of admission to the

1979 COCAP 244 hools and the parole system . ” bar aafter criminal acts. Discipline, Lawyer

The following acts or omissions by an attorney , i

ndividually or in concert with another person , ar

e misconduct and grounds for discipline , whethe

r or not occurring in the course of an attorney - Citing grounds of liability for attorney

Mich., In re Grimes, client relationship : " ( 1 ) conduct prejudicial to who backdated and persuaded client to

1982 COCAP 414 Mich. 483 the proper administration of justice ; " backdated a loan agreement. Discipline, Lawyer

Steinle mistakenly believes that his duty to his cli

ent extends even to commencing a frivolous and

meritless action intended to harass appellees and

to impede and obstruct the due administration of

justice by intentionally forcing a United States Di

C.A. 7, Steinle v. strict Judge to recuse himself from a pending cri

1985 COCAP Warren, 765 F.2d 95 minal case on the eve of trial . Characterizing attorney's conduct. Discipline, Lawyer

Characterizing attorney's repeated

Ind., In re Friedland, There are limits which have been drawn to guara violations of rules of professional

1981 COCAP 416 N.E.2d 433 ntee the effective administration of justice . conduct. Discipline, Lawyer

Although a defendant ’s right to counsel must be

respected , this right can not be manipulated in s

uch a manner as to impede the efficient administ

ration of justice . People v. Lucero , Colo. , 615

P. 2d 660 ( 1980 ) ; United States ex rel . Basker Discussing rejection of defendant's

ville v. Deegan , 428 F. 2d 714 ( 2d Cir . 1970 ) , request to discharge counsel and

Colo., People v. Barnes, cert . denied , 400 U.S. 928 , 91 S.Ct . 193 , 27 represent himself after jury was Judicial proceeding,

1981 COCAP 636 P.2d 1323 L.Ed .2 d 188 . empanneled. procedure

However , because of the strong constitutional i

mplications of the attorney -

client privilege , “ it would serve the orderly ad

ministration of justice and further insure the defe

ndant a fair trial if the admissibility of the [ attor

ney -

client communications ] could be determined in Explaining use of motion to suppress

La., State v. Taylor, 502 a pretrial proceeding . ” State v. Tanner , supra , to test admissibility of attorney-client Judicial proceeding,

1987 COCAP So. 2d 537 at 1174 . communications before trial. procedure

U.S. Claims, White The interests embodied in rules dealing with pret

Mountain Apache Tribe rial disclosure are significant and are an essential Judicial proceeding,

1984 COCAP v. U.S., 4 Cl. Ct. 575 part of the administration of justice . Discussing sanctions. procedure

Complaint Concerning

The Honorable Robert

Crane WINTON, Jr., Standard of Conduct The Code of Judicial Condu

Judge of District Court, ct focuses on conduct prejudicial to the administr

Hennepin County, State ation of justice , which includes but is not limited Explaining significance of canons

***1984 COCAP of Minnesota to criminal conduct . within Code of Judicial Conduct. Discipline, judge

Factors to be taken into account in determining w

hether a decision is to be applied prospectively or

retroactively are : ( 1 ) the purpose of the new ru

le , ( 2 ) the general reliance on the old rule , and

Mich., Hardigree v. ( 3 ) the affect on the administration of justice . P Reciting factors for determining

Green, 97 Mich. App. eople v Hampton , 384 Mich 669 , 673 - retroactive or prospective application Judicial proceeding,

1980 COCAP 62 674 ; 187 NW2d 404 ( 1971 ) . of a decision. precedent

Our inspection of the District ’s Plan persuades u

s that , though it burdens the Court , counsel and

others involved in the administration of justice , i

t does not , as a corollary , reward defendants wit

C.A. 5, U.S. v. Bullock, h automatic dismissals in all cases of underachie Assessing a District Court's plan for Judicial proceeding,

1977 COCAP 551 F.2d 1377 vement . case management. procedure

N.J., Greenberg v. The recusal of all judges so affected could impos Rejecting mandatory recusal of judges

Kimmelman, 99 N.J. e a substantial burden on the administration of ju whose spouses work in the kind of

1985 COCAP 552 stice , particularly in Atlantic County . business at bar. Discipline, judge

The Illinois Supreme Court “ has frequently held

that differences in the size of the municipalities

may raise special or unique problems in connecti

Ill., Rincon v. License on with many activities which justify classificatio

Appeal Comm'n of the n including * * * [ the ] administration of justice Allowing different review procedures Local

City of Chicago, 62 Ill. , [ citations ] • • Du Bois v. Gibbons ( 1954 ) , 2 for license depending on the size of commissioners

1978 COCAP App. 3d 600 Ill. 2d 392 , 402 , 118 N.E. 2d 295 , 301 . the municipality. issuing licenses

The only authority cited by the Willough -

bys to support their argument for the requiremen

t of a specific intent is a definition of contempt in

an Illinois case , picked up and quoted by this co

urt in In re Holbrook , 133 Me . 276 , 280 , 177

A. 418 , 420 ( 1935 ) , along with an assortment

of other definitions from other jurisdictions : any

act which is calculated to embarrass , hinder or o

bstruct the court in the administration of justice ..

.. ( Emphasis added ) We reject the Willough -

bys ’ suggestions that “ is calculated ” as there u

Me., State v. sed means “ is specifically intended ” ; we read “

Willoughby, 532 A.2d is calculated ” as meaning nothing more than “ h

1987 COCAP 1020 as a natural tendency . ” Upholding contempt conviction. Judicial proceeding

This contempt power may not be taken away or a Judicial proceeding,

Ala., Hall v. Hall, 485 bridged , as it is essential to the due administratio powers &

1986 COCAP So. 2d 747 n of justice . Describing a court's inherent power. prerogatives

The trial judge ’s knowledge of the condition of

his docket , considered against the need for an or

derly and prompt administration of justice , place

d him in a unique position to determine whether t Allowing dismissal with prejudice

La., Thomas v. State, he dismissal should be with or without prejudice considering previous continuances and Judicial proceeding,

1980 COCAP 383 So. 2d 108 . judge's docket. procedure

Here , sufficient evidence was presented from w

hich the trial court could conclude that the respon

dents knew that the preliminarily qualified jurors

were precluded from talking to anyone , includin

g members of the media , about the case ; that th

e respondents ’ conduct in contacting the jurors d

espite this knowledge was “ volitional and comm

itted when they knew their conduct was wrongful

” ; and that the respondents ’ conduct was ' cont

emptuous because they “ knowingly interfered wi

th the lawful Order of the court and that misbeha

vior was of such a character as to obstruct the ad Judicial proceeding,

Colo., In re Stone, 703 ministration of justice ” and offend the dignity of Upholding contempt finding for powers &

1985 COCAP P.2d 1319 the court . improper contact with jurors. prerogatives

His actions undertaken with such knowledge wo

uld demonstrate a fundamental lack of honesty a

nd truthfulness , a deep want of trustworthiness a

nd fidelity to those with whom he has entered a b

usiness relationship , and a chronic contempt for

N.J., In re Application the administration of justice and the laws that go Characterizing lawyer's engagement in

1983 COCAP of Matthews, 94 N.J. 59 vern the affairs of individuals . criminal activity. Discipline, Lawyer

The policy underlying the statute of limitations is

primarily for the protection of the defendant , an

d the courts , from litigation of stale claims wher

e plaintiffs have slept on their rights and evidenc

e may have been lost or witnesses ’ memories fa

ded . This policy is sound and necessary for the o

Az., Dicenso v. Bryant rderly administration of justice . ” Brooks v. Sout

Air Conditioning Corp., hern Pacific Co. , 105 Ariz. 442 , 444 , 466 P. 2d Judicial proceeding,

1982 COCAP 131 Ariz. 605 736 , 738 ( 1970 ) . Discussing doctrine. procedure

. If the single justice concludes that the administr

ation of justice would not be facilitated by reporti

Mass., Commonwealth ng the appeal to the full bench , the Commonwea Judicial proceeding,

v. Dunigan et al., 384 lth can not proceed as if no determination had be Affirming judicial prerogatives under powers &

1981 COCAP Mass. 1 en made . state law. prerogatives

To the extent such a charge is valid at common la

w , it is constitutionally impermissible as it disco

urages defendants from exercising their rights to Considering whether a perjury

C.A. 4, U.S. v. Endo, testify , without substantially benefiting the admi information is constitutionally Judicial proceeding,

1980 COCAP 635 F.2d 321 nistration of justice . permissible. procedure

The Court noted that , according to her allegation

s , plaintiff was discharged in retaliation for her r

efusal to commit a criminal act and that to permit

N.C., Hogan et al. v, her discharge , without legal recourse , upon suc Assessing the bounds of at-will

Forsyth Country Club h grounds would be offensive to the compelling p employment; plaintiff getting her day

1986 COCAP Co., 79 N.C. App. 483 ublic interest in the administration of justice . in court Judicial proceeding

In so holding , we are aware of the consideration

s regarding possible prior good -

faith reliance on RAJI 4.01 and the administratio Judicial proceeding,

Az., State v. Garcia, 152 n of justice as the result of vacating prior convicti Discussing retroactive application of a powers &

1986 COCAP Ariz. 245 ons in cases where that instruction was given . new rule. prerogatives

We are further satisfied that Judge Blair did not e

rr in concluding , based on his factual findings , t

hat Santamour ’s conduct did not “ [ fall ] below

an acceptable standard for fair and honorable ad

Ala., Blakesley v. State, ministration of justice . ” Bruce v. State , 612 P.

1986 COCAP 715 P.2d 269 2d 1012 ( Alaska 1980 ) . Rejecting defense of entrapment. Law enforcement

Va., Stockton v. The orderly administration of justice requires tha

Commonwealth, 227 t tactical matters , such as continuances , be left Finding meritless dispute with court- Judicial proceeding,

1984 COCAP Va. 124 with counsel . appointed counsel. procedure

Respondents assert that these requirements facilit

ate the efficient administration of justice , becaus

e nonresident attorneys allegedly are less compet

Sup. Ct., Frazier v. ent and less available to the court than resident at Finding discriminatory bar admission Bar association rules

1987 COCAP Heebe, 96 L. Ed. 2d 557 torneys . rules not backed by evidence. regulating lawyers

Cal., Wenger v. Prejudicial conduct must be “ conduct prejudicial

Comm'n on Judicial to the administration of justice that brings the ju

Performance, 29 Cal. 3d dicial office into disrepute . ” ( Const. , art . VI , Assessing bases for disqualification of

1981 COCAP 615 § 18 , subd . ( c ) ; italics added . ) a judge. Discipline, judge

W.D. Mo., Williams v. The preservation of public trust both in the scrup Explaining motivations for requiring

Trans World Airlines, ulous administration of justice and in the integrit disqualification of attorney likely to

1984 COCAP Inc., 588 F. Supp. 1037 y of the bar is paramount . reveal confidential information. Discipline, Lawyer

The trial court ’s inherent power to protect the so

und administration of justice has provided the ba Judicial proceeding,

C.A. 9, Wheeler v. U.S., sis for orders issued to protect jurors after the tria Discussing a post-trial protective powers &

1981 COCAP 640 F.2d 1116 l has ended . order. prerogatives

If the Government suffered any prejudice , the sp

ecifics of which are still unknown to me , it was

E.D. Pa., U.S. v. plainly self -

Consolidated Foods inflicted . Delay in the administration of justice Chiding the government's lack of Judicial proceeding,

1978 COCAP Corp., 455 F. Supp. 142 has been the subject of much criticism . preparation. procedure

“ Administration of justice ” has been described t

husly : “ The administration of justice consists in

the trial of cases in the court , and their judicial

determination and disposition by orderly procedu

re , under rules of law , and putting of the judgm

ent into effect . ” Massey v. City of Macon , 97

Ga.App . 790 , 794 , 104 S.E. 2d 518 , 521 -

522 ( 1958 ) . We do not believe that the langua

ge “ a lawyer shall not : . . engage in conduct that

is prejudicial to the administration of justice ” is

so vague and indefinite that it violates the due pr Discussing state bar rules and refusing

Tex., Howell v. State, ocess and equal protection clauses of the Constit vagueness challenge in disciplinary

1977 COCAP 559 S.W.2d 432 ution of Texas . case. Discipline, Lawyer

In contrast to the problems of choice of forum , c

hoice of law and conflicting rules of navigation f

oreseen in those cases , we see no similar burden

C.A. 1, Austin v. s on the administration of justice or on the flow o

Unarco Indus., Inc., 705 f maritime commerce that will result from a deni Discussing concerns in the definition Judicial proceeding,

1983 COCAP F.2d 1 al of admiralty jurisdiction in this case . of the reach of admiralty jurisdiction. procedure

“ By withholding the identity of the informer , th

e government profits in that the continued value

of informants placed in strategic positions is prot

ected , and other persons are encouraged to coop

erate in the administration of justice . ” United St Discussing the necessity of anonymity

C.A. 2, In re U.S., 565 ates v. Tucker , 380 F. 2d 206 , 213 ( 2d Cir . 19 of informants to promote cooperation

1977 COCAP F.2d 19 67 ) . with law enforcement. Law enforcement

Particularly in an era of excessively crowded low

er court dockets , it is in the interest of the fair an Quoting Supreme Court's

C.A. 9, Vauman v. U.S. d prompt administration of justice to discourage reaffirmation of review of final rather Judicial proceeding,

1977 COCAP Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650 piecemeal litigation . than "piecemeal" judgments. procedure

See § 3162 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( “ the court shall consider ,

among others , each of the following factors : th

e seriousness of the offense ; the facts and circu

mstances of the case which led to the dismissal ;

and the impact of a reprosecution on the administ Discussing dismiassal under the

C.A. 8, U.S. v. Ray, 768 ration of this chapter and on the administration o Speedy Trial Act for delay between Judicial proceeding,

1985 COCAP F.2d 991 f justice . ” ) . filing of, and hearing on, motions. procedure

The Court reflected upon the extraordinary natur

e of the state ’s interest in Dostert v. Neely , supr

a : “ In declining to enjoin the imposition of the d

isciplinary suspension against the plaintiff , the c

ourt wishes to emphasize the extraordinary state i

nterest in disciplinary proceedings which affect s

tate judges . Disciplinary proceedings exist to vin

dicate the most fundamental of state interests , th

S.D. W. Va., Dostert v. e need for a fair and impartial administration of j

1982 COCAP Neely, 537 F. Supp. 912 ustice for the benefit of all the state ’s citizens . Discussing sanctions against judges. Discipline, judge

( 5 ) Respondent ’s conduct aforesaid constitute

d misconduct in office , in that said conduct was

clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice

within the provisions of article 6 , § 30 of the Mi

Mich., In re Hotchkiss, chigan Constitution of 1963 , as amended , and Adopting a statement of reprimand

1982 COCAP 415 Mich. 1101 GCR 1963 , 932.4 , as amended . against a judge. Discipline, judge

In Stovall v. Denno , 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct . 19

67 , 18 L.Ed .2 d 1199 ( 1967 ) , a majority of th

e United States Supreme Court agreed on the fact

ors which should inform a decision regarding retr

oactivity : “ The criteria guiding resolution of the

question implicate ( a ) the purpose to be served

by the new standards , ( b ) the extent of the relia

nce by law enforcement authorities on the old sta

ndards , and ( c ) the effect on the administration Judicial proceeding,

Pa., Commonwealth v. of justice . ” ( Footnote omitted . ) Id. , at 297 , 8 Reciting standards for retroactive powers &

1980 COCAP Miller, 417 A.2d 128 7 S.Ct . at 1970 . application. prerogatives

Wash., In re

Disciplinary Proceeding The Commission has held that Judge Staples ' act

Against Fred R. Staples, ions nevertheless do not fit within the " administr Allowing a judge to engage in limited

1986 COCAP 105 Wash. 2d 905 ation of justice " exclusion . We disagree . law reform efforts. Judicial conduct

Factors to be considered in determining whether

transfer is appropriate typically include whether t

he statute of limitations has oth erwise run , the c

onvenience of the parties and witnesses , and the

effect on the efficient and expeditious administra

tion of justice . E. g. , Sherar v. Harless , supra , Judicial proceeding,

S.D.N.Y., Wingate v. 561 F. 2d at 794 ; Eccles v. United States , 396 F powers &

1980 COCAP Harris, 501 F. Supp. 58 .Supp . 792 , 796 ( D.N.D. 1975 ) . Considering transfer. prerogatives

United States ex rel . Brown v. Fogel , 395 F. 2d

291 , 293 ( 4th Cir . 1968 ) ( for breach of condit

ion other than nonappearance , court may do all t Judicial proceeding,

C.A. 5, U.S. v. hat is appropriate to orderly progress of trial and Collecting citations supporting history powers &

1979 COCAP Williams, 594 F.2d 86 fair administration of justice ) . of criminalization of bail-jumping. prerogatives

The court may order a prepleading mental health

and physical examination of a defendant and a pr

epleading investigation by the Department of Pro

bation to provide material that would reasonably

aid in the administration of justice by facilitating

the plea bargaining process . ( People v Crosby ,

N.Y., People v. Scala, 87 Misc 2d 1079 , 1080 [ Sup Ct , Bronx County Judicial proceeding,

1985 COCAP 128 Misc. 2d 831 1976 ] . ) Discussing pretrial abilities of court. procedure

The doctrine of equitable estoppel is premised up

on principles of fair dealing and is designed to ai

d the law in the administration of justice where ,

without its aid , injustice might result . City & C

ounty of Denver v. Stackhouse , 135 Colo. 289 ,

Colo., Fanning v. 310 P. 2d 296 ( 1957 ) ; Corporation of Presiding Discussing doctrine estopping plaintiff

Denver Urban Renewal Bishop v. Board of County Commissioners , 689 from raising issue in separate action Judicial proceeding,

1985 COCAP Auth., 709 P.2d 22 P. 2d 738 ( Colo.App .1984 ) . that could have been raised in first. procedure

In scrupulously guarding this fundamental right ,

our Supreme Court has noted that : [ a ] jury is a

n integral part of the court for the administration

of justice and on elementary principles its verdict

must be obedient to the court ’s charge , based s

olely on legal evidence produced before it and en Judicial proceeding,

N.J., Battista v. Olson, tirely free from the taint of extraneous considerat powers &

1986 COCAP 213 N.J. Super. 137 ions and influences . Discussing juries. prerogatives

Therefore , Appellee asserts that the court can im

pose a default judgment by analogy to the interro

gatory statute , or in the alternative it is within th

e inherent power of the court “ to do all things th

at are necessary for the administration of justice

Okla., Amoco within the scope of its - Judicial proceeding,

Production Co. v. jurisdiction . ” Layman v. State , 355 P. 2d 444 ( Assessing whether default judgment powers &

1980 COCAP Lindley, 609 P.2d 733 Okl.Cr.App .1960 ) would be appropriate. prerogatives

The interest of the public in the fair and proper a

dministration of justice includes concerns that tri

als be conducted in an evenhanded manner ; that

the participants in the adversary process , includi

ng witnesses , be protected from unfair tactics ; a

nd that the courts maintain the integrity of the ju

Colo., Rodriguez v. dicial system and the highest ethical standards of

District Court, 719 P.2d the legal profession . James , 708 F. 2d 40 ; Garc Protecting privilege of communication

1986 COCAP 699 ia , 517 F. 2d 272 ; G. Lowenthal , supra , at 61 . of sitnesses with counsel. Procedure; policy

The hearing board concluded that the respondent

’s submission of false documents to the grievanc

e committee violated C.R.C.P. 241.6 ( 7 ) and D

R1-

102 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( violation of a disciplinary rule )

, DR 1 -

102 ( A ) ( 4 ) ( conduct involving dishonesty , f

raud , deceit or misrepresentation ) , and DR 1 -

Colo., People v. Yost, 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) ( conduct that is prejudicial to the

1986 COCAP 729 P.2d 348 administration of justice ) . Recalling findings below. Discipline, Lawyer

Alternatively , the bar asserts that it adopted the

Rules under its authority to make regulations to a

id in the administration of justice ( Bus . & Prof.

Code , § 6031 ) and to ensure that persons admitt Recalling State Bar's justifications for

Cal., People v. Perez, 24 ed to the bar have received proper training ( see allowing supervised law students to Bar association

1979 COCAP Cal. 3d 133 Bus . & Prof. Code , § 6047 ) . participate in criminal matters. adopting rules

defendants EDWARD G. PARTIN , JACK P. F.

GREMILLION , JR. , HAROLD SYKES , BEN

TRANTHAM and CROCKETT CARLTON , u

nlawfully , willfully and knowingly did combine ,

conspire , confederate and agree together and wi

th each other and with their co-

conspirators , Claude W. Roberson , Mitchell Hu

sser and other unknown parties , to commit an of

fense against the United States , to -

wit , Title 18 , United States Code , Section 150

3 , that is to corruptly endeavor to influ ence , ob

struct and impede the due administration of justi

ce in the United States District Court for the Sout

hern District of Texas in that knowing that one C

laude W. Roberson was a material Government Judicial proceeding,

C.A. 5, U.S. v. Partin, witness at the trial of the criminal case , then pen powers &

1977 COCAP 552 F.2d 621 ding Restating the indictment. prerogatives

defendants EDWARD G. PARTIN , JACK P. F.

GREMILLION , JR. , HAROLD SYKES , BEN

TRANTHAM and CROCKETT CARLTON , u

nlawfully , willfully and knowingly did combine ,

conspire , confederate and agree together and wi

th each other and with their co-

conspirators , Claude W. Roberson , Mitchell Hu

sser and other unknown parties , to commit an of

fense against the United States , to -

wit , Title 18 , United States Code , Section 150

3 , that is to corruptly endeavor to influ ence , ob

struct and impede the due administration of justi

ce in the United States District Court for the Sout

hern District of Texas in that knowing that one C

laude W. Roberson was a material Government Judicial proceeding,

Mich., Falk v. State Bar witness at the trial of the criminal case , then pen powers &

1981 COCAP of Mich., 411 Mich. 63 ding Influencing witness prerogatives

Public confidence in the fairness of the criminal j

ustice system and community participation in the

administration of justice are also critical by -

Mass., Commonwalth v. products of juries composed of a representative

Brown, 11 Mass. App. cross section of the community . People v. Wheel Discussing the proportionality Judicial proceeding,

1981 COCAP Ct. 288 er , 22 Cal . 3d 258 , 270 - 272 ( 1978 ) . requirements for juries. procedure

This is so because the mayor had the power to is

sue a warrant for the arrest of defendant to comp

el his appearance at a stated time by reason of th

e mayor ’s statutory powers enumerated in R. C.

1905.20 , relating to criminal matters which , int

er alia , provides : “ * * * The mayor shall award

Oh., Vill. Of Oakwood and issue all writs and process that are necessary

v. Wuliger, 69 Ohio St. to enforce the administration of justice througho Law enforcement;

1982 COCAP 2d 453 ut the municipal corporation . * * * ” Citing ordinance. Mayoral powers

Woven throughout our disciplinary cases involvi

ng attorneys is the thought that they occupy a spe

cial position because they are actively involved in

W. Va., Re: Bonn administering the legal system whose ultimate g

1980 COCAP Brown, 166 W. Va. 226 oal is the evenhanded administration of justice . Discussing the disciplinary system. Discipline, Lawyer

The fact that she chose instead to make her dema

nds in the midst of an already unstable , difficult

, and conceivably dangerous setting gives rise to

a reasonable inference that her conduct was calcu

Ill., People v. Siegel, 94 lated to embarrass , hinder or obstruct the court i Evaluating conduct of disruptive Judiical proceeding;

1983 COCAP Ill. 2d 167 n its administration of justice . individual disruptive incident

When a defendant , for one reason or another , re

fuses the assistance of counsel , trial courts are fa

ced with a difficult question : should the Court re

quire “ standby ” counsel , even against the wish

es of the defendant , in order to protect the defen

dant ’s basic rights ? There is no right to standby

counsel . Nevertheless , the appointment of stand

by counsel may benefit not only the defendant bu Judicial proceeding,

Del., Hicks v. State, 434 t also the Court , by insuring an orderly and fair a procedure, fairness

1981 COCAP A.2d 377 dministration of justice . Assessing doctrine. to defendant

The following assertion of Judge Will is not true

and to that extent creates an appearance of despe

ration in attempting to establish a point : “ ‘ The

Judicial Council ’s order was undeniably “ neces

sary . ... for the effective and expeditious adminis

tration of justice . ’ The chaos and hardship to liti

gants that would have ensued at the expiration of

the Marathon stay , had there been no uniform p

Bankr. N.D. Ill., In re rocedure for carrying forward the business of fed Judicial proceeding,

Wildman, et al., 30 B.R. eral bankruptcy jurisdiction , are universally ackn Judge's assessment of delegations to powers &

1983 COCAP 133 owledged . ” bankruptcy judges. prerogatives

( 2 ) On motion of the state , the court or a party ,

the court may continue the case when required i

n the administration of justice and the defendant

Wash., State c. Kelly, will not be substantially prejudiced in the present Ordering conditions for grants of Judicial proceeding;

1982 COCAP 32 Wash. App. 112 ation of his or her defense . continuances. procedure

C.A. 10, Plastic Considering that this case is on appeal from an or

Container Corp. v. der granting summary judgment , the court has , i

Continental Plastics of n furtherance of the proper administration of just

Oklahoma, 607 F.2d ice , decided the issue of collateral estoppel on th Judicial proceeding;

1979 COCAP 885 e merits of the case . Discussing procedure in patent cases. procedure

In Ex Parte Reynolds , supra , the progenitor of t

his line of cases , the court interpreted Robinson

as diminishing the importance of the “ reliance ”

prong of the tripartite test of Stovall and Desist , Judicial proceeding,

N.D. Tex., Bullard v. and virtually eliminating the third branch of the t powers &

1980 COCAP Estelle est ( effect on administration of justice ) . Discussing retroactivity. prerogatives

For these reasons , this Court feels that unless rel

iance upon the old rule is so great that the accom

panying difficulties in the retroactive administrati Judicial proceeding,

E.D. Ill, Persico v. U.S. on of justice forbid ; it is important that some ave powers &

1977 COCAP DoJ, 426 F. Supp. 1013 nue of relief be made open to the petitioner . Discussing retroactivity. prerogatives

There would also seem to be little impact on - Judicial proceeding,

C.A. 1, Fernandez v. the administration of justice whether or not Rick powers &

1982 COCAP Chardon, 681 F.2d 42 s is applied retroactively . Discussing retroactivity. prerogatives

D. Mass., Lombard v.

Eunice Kennedy This is not a case , therefore , in which the unspe

Schriver Ctr. for Mental cified duration of M.G.L. c. 260 , § 7 ’s tolling p Assessing the effects of mental Judicial proceeding,

Retardation, Inc., 556 F. eriod would have pernicious consequences for th incompetence on state tolling powers &

1985 COCAP Supp. 677 e administration of justice . provision. prerogatives

Pa., In re Anonymous

No. 65 D.B. 75, 7 Pa.

D. & C.3d 519 . . . Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the admi Citing basis of liability for not

1977 COCAP BOARD nistration of justice . informing client and not filing action. Discipline, Lawyer

This court also has said that a minimal showing o

n the part of defendant serves the administration

of justice because it is much easier for defendant

than plaintiff to determine , for example , the abs

U.S. Claims, Park v. ence of defendant ’s witnesses and loss of defend Discussing showings for prejudicial Judicial proceeding;

1986 COCAP U.S., 10 Cl. Ct. 790 ant ’s documents . delay. procedure

By statute , the Supreme Court has " power and c

ontrol over attorneys and counsellors - at -

law and all persons practicing or assuming to pr

actice law ” in this State , and the Appellate Divi

sion is specifically " authorized to censure , susp

end from practice or remove from office any atto

rney and counsellor -

atlaw admitted to practice who is guilty of profe

ssional misconduct , malpractice , fraud , deceit ,

crime or misdemeanor , or any conduct prejudici

N.Y., In re Padilla, 67 al to the administration of justice ” ( Judiciary La Reiterating court's control of conduct

1986 COCAP N.Y.2d 440 w § 90 [ 2 ] ) . of lawyers. Discipline, Lawyer

As was said by this court in Southern Pacific Tra

Tex., State v. Rotello, nsportation Go . v. Stoot , 530 S.W. 2d at 931 : Affirming dismissal for prejudicial Judicial proceeding;

1984 COCAP 671 S.W.2d 507 Delay haunts the administration of justice . delay. procedure

M.D. Fla., U.S. v. The court found that the district court ’s conclusi Judicial proceeding;

Lehder-Rivas, 667 F. on that publicity posed a serious and imminent th Discussing restraining order on powers &

1987 COCAP Supp. 827 reat to the administration of justice was correct . attorneys regarding media contacts. prerogatives

C.A. 9, U.S. v. Tertou, Judicial proceeding;

1984 COCAP 742 F.2d 538 (footnote citing the Speedy Trial Act) procedure

Accordingly , and in furtherance of the

administration of justice , we conclude that a trial

Ct. Customs & Patent de novo is indicated in this case so that the

Appeals, ASG Indus. et merits of the issue of the amount of the net Considering impacts of recent Judicial proceeding;

1979 COCAP al. v. U.S., 610 F.2d 770 bounty herein involved can be fully developed . statutory amendments on procedure. procedure

We are entirely convinced that the ex parte dispo

sition of a criminal case out of court , or the disp

osition of any case for reasons other than an hone

N.C., In re Inquiry st appraisal of the facts and law as disclosed by t

Concerning Judge W. he evidence and the advocacy of both parties , wi Finding a violation of ethical rules in

Milton Nowell, 293 ll amount to conduct prejudicial to the administra judge's dispositoin of a case outside of Discipline, judicial;

1977 COCAP N.C. 235 tion of justice . normal procedures. procedure

Black ’s Law Dictionary , Rev. 4th Ed. , informs

us that such a body is ( p. 425 ) — “ A tribunal o

fficially assembled under authority of law at the a Public utility commission querying

Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, ppropriate , time and place , for the administratio attributes of a body that can

Petition of Myers, 46 n of justice . In re Carter ’s Estate , 254 Pa. 518 , constitutionally exercise judicial

1977 COCAP Fla. Supp. 74 99 A. 58 . ” functions Broad description

On this occasion , however , Zywicki informed t

he police officer that a decision of the District of

Columbia Superior Court had narrowed the appli

cation of 40 U.S.C. § 13k to prohibit only conduc

t engaged in “ with the intent to disrupt or interfe

C.A.D.C., Grace v. re with or impede the administration of justice or

Burger, 214 U.S. App. with the intent of influencing the administration Recounting conduct of officers at Judicial proceeding;

1981 COCAP D.C. 375 of justice . ” Supreme Court. procedure

The trial court also found , pursuant to § 220. -

15 , that appellee had the capacity to understand

the proceedings against him ; his plea was knowi

C.A. 2, Lockett v. ngly and voluntarily made ; and acceptance of th

Montemago, 784 F.2d e plea was required in the interest of the public in Assessing court's finding that pleas Judicial proceeding;

1986 COCAP 78 the effective administration of justice . was voluntary. procedure

The findings in 9 ( b ) and ( e ) , which we have

N.C., In re Inquiry adopted , constitute conduct prejudicial to the ad

Concernign a Judge, ministration of justice that brings the judicial offi Assessing judge's involvement with

1983 COCAP 309 N.C. 635 ce into disrepute . female probation officer. Discipline, judge

The raising of revenue and the allocation of finan

cial resources among all government entities is in

itially and primarily the responsibility of the legis

lative branch of government , and sound public p

olicy considerations demand that when the judici

ary seeks to use its inherent power to overcome t

his peculiar prerogative of the Legislature , it be

held to a high standard and assume the burden of

showing that the funds sought to be compelled a

Tex., District Judges v. re essential for the holding of court , the efficient

County Judge, 657 administration of justice , or the performance of Reciting standard for judicial, as Judicial proceeding;

1983 COCAP S.W.2d 908 its constitutional and statutory duties . opposed to legislative, exactions. financing

" conduct that is prejudicial to the administration

N.Y., In re Newman, 64 of justice ” ( Code of Professional Responsibility Basis of liability for a lawyer's

19781 COCAP A.D.2d 145 , DR 1 - 102 , subd [ A ] , par [ 5 ] ) ; repeated violations of ethical rules. Discipline, lawyer

To permit the losing party in an ongoing depende

ncy custody dispute , as in the case before us , to

file a later adoption proceeding before a different

Arizona juvenile judge while the dependency pr

oceedings are being processed by another Arizon

Az., In re Appeal, 680 a juvenile judge would cause havoc to the orderly Discussing prudential concerns of lack Judicial proceeding;

1983 COCAP P.2d 163 administration of justice . of jurisdictional limits. procedure

Applying this interpretation of the 1831 Act to th

e facts in Nye , the Supreme Court noted that the

allegedly obstructive acts occurred more than on

e hundred miles from the court in which the unde

rlying action was pending , and concluded that su

ch actions were not “ so near thereto as to obstru Judicial proceeding;

S.D.N.Y., U.S. v. Reed, ct the administration of justice , ” and therefore c powers &

1985 COCAP 601 F. Supp. 685 ould not be punished by the offended court . Recalling criteria for "obstruction." prerogatives

C.A. 11, U.S. v.

1986 COCAP Petzold, 788 F.2d 1478 (footnote citing s. 1503) Obstruction statute Unclear

Fla., State v. Patrus, 46 This discretion should be exercised in fairness to Announcing bounds for courts' Judicial proceeding;

1977 COCAP Fla. Supp. 19 all parties and the administration of justice . exercises of discretion. procedure

” Rather we think the language of these cases am

ply indicates that the purpose of the requirements

was to insure that dishonest , unscrupulous or co

rrupt individuals would not use their knowledge

W. Va., Puchinsky v. of the law to perpetrate fraud upon the unsuspect Citing, and then distinguishing, the

W. Va. Bd. of Law ing and unknowledgeable public or to obstruct th motivationd of bar rules from a

Examiners, 164 W. Va. e proper administration of justice for their own o lawyer's holding some or other

1980 COCAP 736 r their clients ’ benefit . political philosophy. Discipline, Lawyer

A court retains inherent power to grant relief to a

party who has been denied an opportunity to def

end in a divorce action under such circumstances

Minn., In re Marriage of as amount to a fraud on the court and the admini Judicial proceeding;

Nordmark, 388 N.W.2d stration of justice . Bredemann v. Bredemann , 2 powers &

1986 COCAP 436 53 Minn. 21 , 24 , 91 N.W. 2d 84 , 87 ( 1958 ) . Describing powers of the court. prerogatives

Typical of the reasoning of these courts is E. W.

Scripps Co. v. Fulton , supra , where the public i

nterest was stated as follows : “ It can never be cl

W. Va., State ex rel. aimed that in a democratic society the public has Judicial

The Herald Mail Co., no interest in or does not have the right to observ Discussing access of journalists to proceedings; access

1980 COCAP 165 W. Va. 103 e the administration of justice . judicial proceedings. to

In considering the serious request which was not

made lightly , we are guided by the rationale of

our Superior Court in Crawford ’s Estate , 307 P

a. 102 , 108 ( 1931 ) , wherein the court stated : “

Pa., Kaplan v. Due consideration should be given by him [ judg

Alleghany Co. Comm'rs, e ] to the fact that the administration of justice sh Assessing whether any county judge Judicial proceeding;

1986 COCAP 45 Pa. D. & C.3d 396 ould be beyond the appearance of unfairness . would be able to hear the instant case. procedure

Assessing denial of continuance when

pro se party repeatedly missed court

C.A. 9, U.S. v. Kelm, There is little doubt that Kelm ’s conduct hindere and imposed requirements for Judicial proceeding;

1987 COCAP 827 F.2d 1319 d the “ efficient administration of justice . appointed counsel. procedure

D. Ark., Polson v. Nor does the public service or the administration Refusing absolute privilege to public

Davis, 635 F. Supp. of justice require complete immunity for such an officers in the context of terminating

1986 COCAP 1130 action . employment. Judicial proceeding

Stated as basis of liabiltiy under

professional conduct rules for fialures

Mo., In re Clinton to advise client of adverse judgment,

Adams, 737 S.W.2d ( d ) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the delay payment to government division,

1987 COCAP 714 administration of justice and acting against client's interests. Discipline, Lawyer

DR 1 -

102 ( A ) ( 5 ) ( conduct prejudicial to the admin

Colo., People v. istration of justice ) ; and DR 6 - Reciting basis of liability resulting in

1983 COCAP Whitcomb, 676 P.2d 11 101 ( A ) ( 3 ) ( neglect of a legal matter ) . suspension of one year and one day. Discipline, Lawyer

It is in the best interests of the estate , the debtor

and the creditors to dismiss this Chapter 11 case

to effectuate a substantial savings in litigation an

d administrative expenses which would otherwis

e be incurred if it were to remain pending and to

Bankr. W.D. Ark., In re further serve the ends of the fair efficient and eff Restating rationale for dismissal Judicial proceeding;

1986 COCAP Westfall, 73 B.R. 186 ective administration of justice . offered below. procedure

C.A. 8, Banks v. Heun- To take such action could , in our judgment , esta

Norwood, 566 F.2d blish a precedent which would not advance the pr Characterizing the result of granting Judicial proceeding;

1977 COCAP 1073 oper administration of justice . relief sought for first time on appeal. procedure

In both instances , the trial judge ’s knowledge o

f “ the condition of his docket , fairness not only

to both parties but also to other litigants in his co

urt , and the need for an orderly and prompt admi

nistration of justice ” provides him with superior

La., Martin v. South ability to determine the terms of the dismissal .

Coast Corp., 356 So. 2d Malter v. McKinney , 310 So .2 d 696 , 698 ( La. Describing judges' latitiude in Judicial proceeding;

1977 COCAP 500 App . 1st Cir . 1975 ) . dismissals. procedure

Section 1503 also contains a broad omnibus clau

se which makes illegal any actions whereby a per

son who “ corruptly or by threats or force , or by

any threatening letter or communication , influen

ces , obstructs or impedes , or endeavors to influ

ence , obstruct , or impede , the due administrati

on of justice , shall be fined not more than $ 5,00

C.A. 6, U.S. v. 0 or imprisoned not more than five years , or bot (Cited in footnote of appeal reversing Judicial proceeding;

1985 COCAP Schneider, 771 F.2d 149 h . and granting new trial.) procedure

N.D. Ind., Naked City, Prosecutor Ryan corruptly obstructed and impede

Inc. v. Aregood, 667 F. d the due administration of justice in violation of (Appendix stating cause of action

1987 COCAP Supp. 1246 18 USC 1503 . from complaint.) Lawyer misconduct

Concomitantly , to promote and maintain the effi

cient administration of justice and the enforceabil

Pa., Pa. Labor Relations ity of their employees ’ contracts , the judges of t

Bd. v. Am. Federation he courts of common pleas must have input throu

of State…, 526 A.2d gh the county commissioners . Id. , 507 Pa. at 27 Judges must have collective barganing

1987 COCAP 769 9 , 489 A. 2d at 1329 - 1330 . input from county commissioners. Judicial conduct

It comprehends any act which is calculated to or t

ends to embarrass , hinder , impede , frustrate , o

r obstruct the court in the administration of justic

e , or which is calculated to or has the effect of le

ssening its authority or its dignity ; or which inter

feres with or prejudices parties during the course

of litigation , or which tends otherwise to bring t Judicial proceeding;

N.J., State v. Vasky, he authority or administration of the law into disr powers &

1985 COCAP 203 N.J. Super. 91 epute or disregard . Finding of contempt prerogatives

In determining whether to give a decision prospe

ctive or retrospective application , the purpose of

Az., In re Appeal in the decision , reliance on a prior rule of law , and Appeal from court order granting

Pima Cnty, 118 Ariz. the possible effect upon the administration of jus adoption and denying habeas as to two

1977 COCAP 127 tice are factors which must be considered . children. Law enforcement

That statute provides that a federal court has the

power to punish by fine or imprisonment such co

C.A. 3, Commonwealth ntempt of its authority as “ [ misbehavior of any Judicial proceeding;

v. Local Union 542, 552 person in its presence or so near thereto as to obs Underlying contempt order (on powers &

1977 COCAP F.2d 498 truct the administration of justice . ” appeal). prerogatives

This right may not be employed to thwart the ad Motion for continuance to employ

Ill., Peoplle v. Elder, 73 ministration of justice or to delay prosecution ind different attorney in case below Judicial proceeding;

1979 COCAP Ill. App. 3d 192 efinitely . implicating right to counsel. procedure

Finally , it does not serve the interests of the adm

inistration of justice to deny the making of a moti

on to dismiss when , as here , the affidavit in sup

N.Y., Lipman v. port of the motion to dismiss goes beyond mere c

Salsberg, 107 Misc. 2d onclusionary allegations of lack of proper service Judicial proceeding;

1980 COCAP 276 . Review of denial of motion to dismiss. procedure

In the instant case , the record fails to disclose th Judicial proceeding;

Oh., State v. Conliff, 61 at the statement constituted “ an imminent threat Underlying contempt finding (on powers &

1978 COCAP Ohio App. 2d 185 to the administration of justice . ” appeal). prerogatives

In addition , it was found that the respondent ’s

conduct was prejudicial to the administration of j

ustice and reflects his unfitness to practice law a

Colo., People v. nd was therefore in violation of DR1 — 102 ( A Grievance Committee's evalution of

1982 COCAP Kenelly, 648 P.2d 1065 ) ( 5 ) and ( 6 ) . attorney's conduct. Discipline, Lawyer

The trial court , citing no common law authoritie

s , briefly adverted to the statute , but spoke main

C.A. 1, Del Rio v. ly of the duty of compensation carriers in particul

Northern Blower Co., ar , and the orderly process and administration of Lower court's assessment of

1978 COCAP 574 F.2d 23 justice in general . workmen's compensation scheme. Unclear

First , a criminal contempt is classically defined a

s an act which is calculated to embarrass , hinder Judicial proceeding;

, or obstruct a court in the administration of justi powers &

Fla., Dudley v. State, ce , or which is calculated to lessen its authority Underlying contempt order (on prerogatives;

1987 COCAP 511 So. 2d 1052 or dignity . appeal). contempt

By reason of the foregoing , respondent has negle

cted a legal matter entrusted to him in violation o

f The Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsi

bility , Disciplinary Rule 6 -

101 ( A ) ( 3 ) ; engaged in conduct prejudicial t

o the administration of justice in violation of Dis

ciplinary Rule 1 -

102 ( A ) ( 5 ) ; and engaged in conduct that adv

Fla., Bar v. Hoffer, 412 ersely reflects on his fitness to practice law in vio Bar official's evaluation of attorney's

1982 COCAP So. 2d 858 lation of Disciplinary Rule 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 6 ) . conduct (on reivew) Discipline, Lawyer

By resisting arrest , Williams threatened that tim

e-

tested yet fragile social balance whereby our elec

ted representatives provide laws for the good of s

ociety , and public officers to execute and enforc

e them , and under which respect and obedience

Pa., Commonwealth v. shown to officers discharging their lawful duties

Williams, 344 Pa. are as essential to the orderly administration of ju Evaluation of conduct (resisting

1985 COCAP Super. 108 stice as the laws themselves . arrest). Law enforcement

Mich., Falk v. State Bar In an integrated bar the compelling state interest i

1981 COCAP of Mich., 411 Mich. 63 s the administration of justice . Court's assessment of policy aims. Bar generally

The appellant was held in contempt of court and

sentenced to five and one -

half months imprisonment under Subsection 3 o

f the Penal Contempt Statute which provides : Th

e power of the several courts of this Commonwe

alth to issue attachments and to inflict summary

punishments for contempts of court shall be restr Judicial proceeding;

icted to the following cases : ( 3 ) The misbehavi powers &

Pa., Commonwealth v. or of any person in the presence of the court , the Reciting statute in appeal from prerogatives;

1981 COCAP Reid, 494 Pa. 201 reby obstructing the administration of justice . criminal contempt. contempt

Conduct which falls short of reaffirming one ’s fi

tness for the high responsibilities of judicial offic

e constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administr

Ne., In re Complaint, ation of justice that brings the judicial office into Basis of liability in charges against

1984 COCAP 351 N.W.2d 693 disrepute . judge. Discipline, judge

A witness violates no duty to claim it , but one w

ho bribes , coerces , forces or threatens a witness

to claim it , or advises with corrupt motive the w Judicial proceeding;

itness to take it , can and does himself obstruct or Citing upholding of conviction under powers &

C.A. 4, U.S. v. Baker, influence the due administration of justice . 329 s. 1503, for inducing witness to use prerogatives;

1979 COCAP 611 F.2d 964 F. 2d at 443 . Amend. V privilege. Tampering

Accordingly , we conclude that the evidence esta Judicial proceeding;

blished beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant Affirming conviction either for powers &

Ill., People v. Page, 73 wilfully and knowingly interfered with the admi misleading court or causing delat, in prerogatives;

1979 COCAP Ill. App. 3d 796 nistration of justice . either case giving rise to liabiltiy. Tampering

Principles of finality , certainty , and the proper a

dministration of justice suggest that a decision on

ce rendered should stand unless some compelling Explaining doctrine back of question

S.C., Beall v. Doe, 281 countervailing consideration necessitates relitiga whether a party is precluded from Judicial proceeding;

1984 COCAP S.C. 363 tion . relitigating an issue with a nonparty. procedure

The Florida Bar in response submits that to grant

the petition would not adversely affect the purity

of the court system , hinder the administration of

Fla., Bar v. Ward, 366 justice , or adversely affect the confidence of the

1978 COCAP So. 2d 405 public in the legal profession . Petition to resign from bar. Discipline, lawyer

This court imposed a thirty -

day suspension , even though we concluded that

the attorney ’s conduct had perpetrated a fraud o

D.C., In re Hutchison, n the judicial system and compromised the admi Describing previous sanction on

1987 COCAP 534 A.2d 919 nistration of justice . lawyer. Discipline, lawyer

The administrative office of the courts was give

n authority to “ serve as an agency to apply for an

d receive grants or other assistance and to coordi

C.A. 5, Stegmaier v. nate or conduct studies and projects in connectio

Trammell, 597 F.2d n with the improvement of the administration of j

1979 COCAP 1027 ustice . Describing the duty of court officers. Judiciary generally

State v. Gregory , 66 N.J. 510 , 519 ( 1975 ) ( pr

ohibiting multiple prosecution for acts arising out

of same arrest under court ’s supervisory power

N.J., State v. Ramseur, to ensure fairness in the administration of justice Judicial proceeding;

1987 COCAP 106 N.J. 123 , although rejecting constitutional attack ) ; Outlining court's doctrine. procedure

So , it is clear beyond any argument that the Res

pondent is guilty of Disciplinary Rule 1 -

102 “ Misconduct . ( A ) A lawyer shall not : ( 1

) Violate a Disciplinary Rule ; ( 5 ) Engage in co

Md., Attorney nduct that is prejudicial to the administration of j

Grievance Comm'n of ustice ; and ( 6 ) Engage in any other conduct tha

Md. v. Singleton, 532 t adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law . Upholding sanction of attorney in bar

1987 COCAP A.2d 157 ” proceeding. Discipline, lawyer

While we are sensitive to the fact that the efficie

nt administration of justice can not be subject to t

he whims and inordinate delays of litigants , and

are not convinced that the failure in this case of t

he plaintiff ’s new attorney to be prepared for tria

l could not have been avoided , there is nothing i

N.Y., Stock v. Stock, n this record to indicate bad faith on the part of t Judicial proceeding;

1987 COCAP 127 A.D.2d 829 he plaintiff in seeking an adjournment . Reversing dismissal. procedure

Since defendant Donn persisted in his contempti

ble conduct despite the warnings of the Court , a

nd so misbehaved that in the presence of the Cou

rt he , Donn , outrageously obstructed the admini

stration of justice , the Court finds said Donn in c

ontempt of Court and he is ordered to be sentenc

ed to a term of six months , all as appears conclu Judicial proceeding;

sively in the transcript of Evidentiary Hearing , et powers &

C.D. Cal., U.S. v. Donn, al. , January 25 , 1982 , which is hereby incorpo prerogatives;

1982 COCAP 584 F. Supp. 525 rated herein and made part hereof . Contempt finding. Contempt

This court imposed a thirty -

day suspension , even though we concluded that

the attorney ’s conduct had perpetrated a fraud o

D.C., In re Hutchison, n the judicial system and compromised the admi

1986 COCAP 518 A.2d 995 nistration of justice . Recalling past sanction. Discipline, lawyer

Respondent ’s discussion of murdering another p

erson , raising a false claim of physical inability t

o stand trial , cocaine selling , and jumping bail c

onstituted unethical conduct prejudicial to the ad

ministration of justice , in violation of DR 1 -

102 ( A ) ( 5 ) and adversely reflecting on his fit

N.J., In re Mintz, 101 ness to practice law , in violation of DR 1 -

1986 COCAP N.J. 527 102 ( A ) ( 6 ) Disciplinary proceeding. Discipline, lawyer

London has not offered any reason why a fraudul

ent judgment given by a lawyer to his client does

not constitute an endeavor to impede the due ad Judicial proceeding;

ministration of justice other than the fact that the powers &

C.A. 11, U.S. v. obstruction occurred after the resolution of the la prerogatives;

1983 COCAP London, 714 F.2d 1558 wsuit . Appeal of conviction under s. 1503. Tampering

Although clearly inappropriate and ill -

advised , the question did not significantly disru

Pa., In re Campolongo, pt the proceedings and thus did not constitute an

1981 COCAP 435 A.2d 581 obstruction of the administration of justice . Reveral of contempt finding. Discipline, lawyer

It is precisely because “ the necessities of the ad

ministration of justice require such summary dea

ling . [ as ] a mode of vindicating the majesty of l

aw , in its active manifestation , against obstructi

on and outrage to it , ” Offutt v. United States , 3

48 U.S. 11 , 14 , 75 S.Ct . 11 , 13 , 99 L.Ed . 11 ,

16 ( 1954 ) , that the summary contempt power

has been upheld against due process attacks , see

, e. g. , Cooke v. United States , supra , 267 U.S.

at 534 , 45 S.Ct . 390 , 69 L.Ed . at 773 ; Ex part

e Terry , 128 U.S. 289 , 9 S.Ct . 77 , 32 L.Ed . 4 Judicial proceeding;

Pa., Commonwealth v. 05 ( 1888 ) , and we therefore decline to adopt ap powers &

Stevenson, 393 A.2d pellant ’s argument that summary adjudication is Assessing arguments on appeal of prerogatives;

1978 COCAP 386 per se unconstitutional . contempt finding. Contempt

A federal district court must be able “ to protect t

C.A. 1, Brockton he administration of justice by levying sanctions

Savings Bank v. Peat, in response to abusive litigation practices . ” Pent

Marwick, Mitchell & house International , Ltd. v. Playboy Enterprises , Judicial proceeding;

1985 COCAP Co., 771 F.2d 5 Inc. , 663 F. 2d 371 , 386 ( 2d Cir .1981 ) . Expounding doctrine. procedure

Permitting a defendant to proclaim his guilt in op Finding that guilty pleas waive all but

N.H., State v. Parkhurst, en court and still avoid conviction is incompatibl jurisdictional defects; remanding Judicial proceeding;

1981 COCAP 121 N.H. 821 e with the sound administration of justice . defective guilty plea. procedure

La., State v. Williams,

Permitting a defendant

to proclaim his guilt in

open court and still

avoid conviction is

incompatible with the A juror ’s failure to attend court interferes with t

sound administration of he orderly administration of justice . See La.C.Cr Affirming trial judge's replacement of Judicial proceeding;

1986 COCAP justice . .P . arts. 17 , 20 , 21 . absent juror. procedure; juries

They are matters involving a serious and substant

ive evil — the imminent and substantial threat to

Va., Landmark the orderly administration of justice posed by the

Communications, Inc. v. premature disclosure of the confidential proceed

Commonwealth, 217 ings of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commiss Importance of confidentiality of

1977 COCAP Va. 699 ion . review of judges. Discipline, judges

Respondent did not advise [ C ] that the statute h

ad expired , nor what actions could be taken to pr

Pa., In re Anonymous otect his interest . It is charged that respondent ’s

No. 65 D.B. 75, action involved a violation of : a. D.R. 1 -

Disciplinary Board of 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) — Engage in conduct that is preju

the Supreme Court of dicial to the administration of justice . b. D.R. 1 -

1977 COCAP Pennsylvania 102 ( A ) ( 6 ) Board outlining basis of liability. Discipline, lawyer

E.D. Mich, Snider v.

Lone Star Art Trading Although not an entirely impossible mission , suc Judicial proceeding;

Co., Inc., 659 F. Supp. h a task would make the administration of justice Assessing the elaboration of RICO's application of

1987 COCAP 1249 by the Court an extremely arduous task test beyond its current scope. doctrine

Analysis Lifting the Stay for Cause : Administrat

ion of Justice 11 U.S.C. § 362 ( d ) states : On re

quest of a party in interest and after notice and a

hearing , the court shall grant relief from the stay

... such as by terminating , annulling , modifying

, or conditioning such stay — ( 1 ) for cause ... T

he Court has found as sufficient cause for modify

ing the stay in this case that the administration of

justice and the convenience of the parties is bett

er served by having the State court act as the one

Bankr. E.D. Mich., In re tribunal before which all claims , counterclaims , Outlining legal standard in bankruptcy Judicial proceeding;

1982 COCAP Rutter, 25 B.R. 244, or cross-claims may be heard . court. procedure

From the foregoing findings we now find that Re

spondent filed the lawsuit when he knew that his

action would merely serve to harass and maliciou

sly injure others , engaged in conduct prejudicial

to the administration of justice , which adversely

reflects on his fitness to practice law , and , by fil

ing a lawsuit against a judge for conduct occurrin

g in the performance of his judicial capacity , adv

Ind., In re Moody, 428 anced a claim which is unwarranted under existi

1981 COCAP N.E.2d 1257 ng law . Assessing complaint against attorney. Discipline, lawyer

Based on the facts outlined above , we agree with

the commission ’s determination that Lucas viol

ated the following provisions of the Iowa Code of

Professional Responsibility for Lawyers : EC 1 -

5 ( requiring high standards of professional cond

uct ) ; DR 1 -

102 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( violating disciplinary rule ) ; DR

1-

102 ( A ) ( 3 ) ( prohibiting conduct involving m

oral turpitude ) ; DR 1 -

102 ( A ) ( 4 ) ( prohibiting dishonesty , fraud , d

Ia., Committee on eceit or misrepresentation ) ; DR 1 -

Professional Ethics v. 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) ( prohibiting conduct prejudicial t

1987 COCAP Lucas, 420 N.W.2d 781 o the administration of justice ) ; Commission's findings (affirmed). Discipline, lawyer

Consequently , the Council concluded that “ the

uniform effective and expeditious administration

of justice within this Circuit requires that the atta

ched rule for the administration of the bankruptc

C.A. 6, White Motor y system in this Circuit be adopted by the Distric

Corp. v. Citibank, 704 t Courts .... ” Order of the Judicial Council of the Recalling Judicial Council, C.A. 6 Judicial council

1983 COCAP F.2d 254 Sixth Circuit , December 21 , 1982 . determination. determining rules

Nor is there the slightest reference in his remarks

to burdens on the administration of justice , to w

N.C., State v. Norville, asted court resources , or to the necessity of emp Judicial proceeding;

1987 COCAP 321 N.C. 92 anelling another jury in the event of a mistrial . Upholding instructions of trial judge. procedure

Such proof might support a reasonable inference

that Negroes are excluded from juries for reasons

wholly unrelated to the outcome of the particular

case on trial and that the peremptory system is b

eing used to deny the Negro the same right and o

C.A. 8, Baker v. pportunity to participate in the administration of j Expositing rationale of peremptory Judicial proceeding;

1977 COCAP Wyrick, 547 F.2d 428 ustice enjoyed by the white population . challenges. procedure

Ala., Vienna v. Scott and 4 ) the effect on the administration of justice

Wetzel Services, Inc., of a retroactive application of the new rule of law Judicial proceeding;

1987 COCAP 740 P.2d 447 . Discussing retroactivity standard. retroactivity

Mich., St. Bar

Grievance Reciting rules that govern professional

Administrator v. Del ( 5 ) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the a conduct in review of determinations

1979 COCAP Rio, 407 Mich. 336 dministration of justice . thereof. Discipline, lawyer

Out of a concern for the “ practical administratio

n of justice , ” we conclude , with the trial judge

Oh., St. v. Fox, 68 Ohio here , that not enough evidence was introduced t Affirming jury instructions of trial Judicial proceeding;

1981 COCAP St. 2d 53 o warrant the requested instruction . judge. procedure

In the letter , the movants renew their applicatio

n to withdraw the reference because this will furt

her the efficient administration of justice and con

tend that “ [ ijndeed , the practical consequence o

f the withdrawal of the reference is that it should

obviate the need for the prosecution and resolutio

S.D.N.Y., In re Lion n of appeals from the bankruptcy judge 's determ

Capital Group, 48 B.R. ination that the proceedings below are core proce Finding movants' motion Judicial proceeding;

1985 COCAP 329 edings .... ” unreasonable, and so denying it. procedure

In State v. DeLomba , 117 R.I. 673 , 370 A. 2d 1

273 ( 1977 ) , the Rhode Island supreme court , r

elying in part on Coleman , adopted the requirem

ent of either a grant of use and derivative use im

munity for testimony given at a probation revocat

ion hearing , or postponement of the revocation p

roceeding until after the criminal trial , on the rea

soning that “ the unfairness of the current practic

e , even if not so severe as to rise to the level of a

constitutional deprivation , is nevertheless so rea

l and substantial that it calls for action by us on p

ublic policy grounds and in furtherance of our res Resolving constitutional question,

Ala., McCracken v. ponsibility to assure a sound and enlightened ad raised below, of coordination of Judicial proceeding;

1980 COCAP Corey, 612 P.2d 990 ministration of justice . ” Id . at 1275 . probation and criminal proceedings. procedure

Inquiries would also promote the effective admin

istration of justice by resolving most conflict situ

Nev., Harvey v. State, ations at the earliest possible stage of the proceed Reversing and remanding for want of Judicial proceeding;

1980 COCAP 619 P.2d 1214 ings separate trials below. procedure

The Respondent objects to the finding that his co

nduct in refusing to produce the records was ‘ pr

ejudicial to the administration of justice ’ in viola

tion of DR 1 -

102 ( A ) ( 5 ) and ‘ conduct that adversely refle

Del., In re Kennedy, cts on his fitness to practice law ’ in violation of Requesting review of disciplinary

1982 COCAP 442 A.2d 79 DR 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 6 ) . determination below. Discipline, lawyers

We believe that the restrictive view to the contrar

y , that it can not , only encourages multiplicity o

Kan., Burnworth v. f litigation and waste in the administration of just Announcing rule for visitation and Judicial proceeding;

1983 COCAP Hughes, 234 Kan. 69 ice . child suppoer cases. procedure

The repeated assertions by Mr. Evans , even after

the dispositive approving opinion of the Fourth

Circuit Court of Appeals on the very matters whi

ch Mr. Evans contends were erroneously decided

by the Magistrate , and his continued and unrele

nting groundless assertions that the Magistrate ac

ted out of bias , rather than in compliance with w

ell -

established rules of law , make it apparent that

Mr. Evans acted originally , and continues to act

C.A. 4, In re Evans, 801 , in a way that is prejudicial to the administration Recounting reasoning of judge in

1986 COCAP F.2d 703 of justice in violation of DR 1 -- 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) disciplinary matter below. Discipline, lawyers

Such conduct is prejudicial to the administration

Ind., In re Carmody, of justice and reflects adversely on his fitness to

1987 COCAP 513 N.E.2d 649 practice law . Affirming disciplinary findings below. Discipline, lawyers

Furthermore , if the disqualification of one gover

nment attorney could serve as the predicate for th

D. Conn., U.S. v. e disqualification of the entire United States Atto

Curico, 608 F. Supp. rney ’s Office , the administration of justice woul Assessing and rejecting defendants' Judicial proceeding;

1985 COCAP 1346 d be irreparably damaged . disqualification arguments. procedure

In summary , Richmond Newspapers does not se

rve to support defendant ’s demand that he be aw

arded a new trial because a trial judge in the inter

est of the fair administration of justice may impo

se reasonable limitations upon the access of the p

N.C., State v. Burney, ublic and the press to a criminal trial_U.S. at_n . Rejecting reasoning back of motion Judicial proceeding;

1981 COCAP 302 N.C. 529 18,65 L. Ed .2 d at 992 , 100 S. Ct. at 2830 . for new trial. procedure

The waiver provision of § 455 ( e ) , which appli

es to the “ appearance ” of impropriety issues un

der § 455 ( a ) but not to any actual conflict of int

erest under § 455 ( b ) , reinforces our conclusion

that § 455 ( a ) is concerned with perceptions rat

C.A. 7, U.S. v. Murphy, her than actual defects in the administration of ju Expounding doctrine of waiver for Judicial proceeding;

1985 COCAP 768 F.2d 1518 stice . potential judicial conflicts. procedure

The standard to be met before first amendment f

reedoms can be abridged is that the expression b

y the press must constitute “ ‘ an immediate , not

Fla., Sentinel Star Co. v. merely likely , threat to the administration of just Finding trial court was perfunctory in Judicial proceeding;

1979 COCAP Booth, 372 So. 2d 100 ice . denying press access. procedure

Texas counties perform a number of functions fo

r the state including the supervision of state electi

ons , the collection of state property taxes , the co

nstruction of state roads , bridges and ferries , an

N.D. Tex., Crane v. d the administration of justice . The Texas Sup

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.