You are here: Home / Education / Online Training / Ethics for Judges Tutorial

Administrative Duties

A presiding judge is responsible and must take reasonable measures to assure the prompt disposition of matters before the judges he supervises and the proper performance of their other judicial responsibilities.

Judge Roth becomes presiding judge of his district, replacing a presiding judge who has retired. The newly appointed associate judge on the bench, Judge Smith, is a likeable former colleague of Judge Roth who helped his election and whose family is close to the Roths. After a few months, Judge Roth notices that Judge Smith seems to be gone from the courthouse quite frequently. He requests a docket sheet and finds out that Judge Smith has recused himself on numerous cases, and has conducted and scheduled few trials. Further investigation shows that Judge Smith has also issued few judgments, and no opinions exceeding one page in length. Judge Roth is tempted to say something, but fears that it may anger Judge Smith and affect their family relations to do so. After a few more months, Judge Roth receives a letter from the local bar association complaining of Judge Smith’s lack of performance.

What responsibility does the presiding judge have for the inadequate performance of an associate judge?

1. None. Judge Smith may have to face disciplinary charges, but he alone is responsible for his own actions.
As presiding judge, Judge Roth is responsible and must take reasonable measures to assure the prompt disposition of matters before the judges he supervises and the proper performance of their other judicial responsibilities. NMRA 21-300 (C) (3). A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of the Code should take appropriate action, NMRA 21-300 (D), which is defined in the commentary to include direct communication with the judge. Since Judge Roth has received sufficient information showing a substantial likelihood that Judge Smith has violated NMRA 21-300 (duty of impartiality and diligence), he must take corrective action. Ultimately, if Judge Smith’s behavior does not improve and reaches the point where it raises a substantial question as to Judge Smith’s fitness for office, the presiding judge is required "to inform the appropriate authority," presumably the Judicial Standards Commission.
2. As presiding judge, Judge Roth is responsible for both his own performance and the performance of his associate judges. Judge Roth should initiate appropriate disciplinary action against Judge Smith.
As presiding judge, Judge Roth is responsible and must take reasonable measures to assure the prompt disposition of matters before the judges he supervises and the proper performance of their other judicial responsibilities. NMRA 21-300 (C) (3). A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of the Code should take appropriate action, NMRA 21-300 (D), which is defined in the commentary to include direct communication with the judge. Since Judge Roth has received sufficient information showing a substantial likelihood that Judge Smith has violated NMRA 21-300 (duty of impartiality and diligence), he must take corrective action. Ultimately, if Judge Smith’s behavior does not improve and reaches the point where it raises a substantial question as to Judge Smith’s fitness for office, the presiding judge is required "to inform the appropriate authority," presumably the Judicial Standards Commission.
3. Judge Roth is responsible as presiding judge, and should refer the matter to the Judicial Standards Commission or the Supreme Court immediately.
As presiding judge, Judge Roth is responsible and must take reasonable measures to assure the prompt disposition of matters before the judges he supervises and the proper performance of their other judicial responsibilities. NMRA 21-300 (C) (3). A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of the Code should take appropriate action, NMRA 21-300 (D), which is defined in the commentary to include direct communication with the judge. Since Judge Roth has received sufficient information showing a substantial likelihood that Judge Smith has violated NMRA 21-300 (duty of impartiality and diligence), he must take corrective action. Ultimately, if Judge Smith’s behavior does not improve and reaches the point where it raises a substantial question as to Judge Smith’s fitness for office, the presiding judge is required "to inform the appropriate authority," presumably the Judicial Standards Commission.