Miss. Commi'n on Judicial Performance v. Britton


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-JP-01922-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-24-2006
Holding: PUBLIC REPRIMAND, THIRTY DAY SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY; PAY ALL COSTS

Additional Case Information: Topic: Judicial discipline - Willful misconduct - Ex parte communications - Public reprimand - Suspension
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.
Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Randolph, J., Specially Concurs with Separate Written Opinion Joined by Smith, C.J., Easley, Carlson and Dickinson, JJ.; Cobb, P.J., Joins in Part.
Non Participating Judge(s): Waller, P.J., and Diaz, J.
Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Yes
Concur in Part, Concur in Result Joined By 1: Easley, J.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Graves, J.
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-28-2005
Appealed from: COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
Judge: Frank M. Coleman
Disposition: The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance recommended that Hinds County Justice Court Judge Ivory E. Britton be publicly reprimanded and assessed costs in the sum of $1,118.37 for his actions which the Commission found to constitute willful misconduct in office.
Case Number: 2004-023/256

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance




LUTHER T. BRANTLEY, III



 

Appellee: Ivory E. Britton PHILLIP J. BROOKINS JOHN L. WALKER, JR.  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Judicial discipline - Willful misconduct - Ex parte communications - Public reprimand - Suspension

Summary of the Facts: The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance recommended that Hinds County Justice Court Judge Ivory Britton be publicly reprimanded and assessed costs in the sum of $1,118.37 for his actions which the Commission found to constitute willful misconduct in office. The Commission asserts that Judge Britton committed willful misconduct in office by violating Canons 1, 2A, 3B(2), 3B(7), 3B(8), and 3C(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct of Mississippi, by engaging in exparte conversations with litigants. Further, the Commission asserts that Britton committed willful misconduct when he failed to comply with section 9-11-33 by setting aside assigned final judgments and interfering with and setting aside the order handed down by another judge.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Judge Britton does not assert that his actions were appropriate under the Code of Judicial Conduct; only that he was not aware that they were inappropriate. He argues that a simple mistake, such as his, does not warrant a finding of misconduct. Judge Britton did not base his defense on the fact that he misread relevant statutes or controlling precedent or that it was a subject not covered in his training. To the contrary, he freely admitted that exparte conversations were a topic covered at several judicial conferences he attended and that he was provided reading materials at these conferences which he did not read. Further, he admitted that he had not fully read relevant precedent from the Supreme Court. His judicial errors were not based on faulty analysis and misjudgment but rather on basic ignorance of the law. The sanctions available in judicial misconduct cases include, but are not limited to, the power to remove a judge from office, suspend a judge from duty, levy a fine and require a public reprimand. Judge Britton has served as a justice court judge for over a decade. There is no evidence in the record of the harm done by Judge Britton’s ignorance of the law, other than the monetary loss to those litigants who did not receive a proper trial in compliance with the law. But an immeasurable harm occurs when a judge who is trusted as the gatekeeper to justice for all our citizens, fails to learn and apply fundamental tenets of the law. Further, the judicial activities that gave rise to the present action fall within the ambit of moral turpitude, which includes, but is not limited to, actions which involve interference with the administration of justice. Judge Britton’s actions in setting aside his own and another judge’s final judgments, based on exparte conversations without proper procedure, are serious offenses. His repeated commission of the same offense certainly establishes a pattern of misconduct. Judge Britton has been before the Commission a total of six times. From the first complaint in 1999, through the latest complaint in 2005, Judge Britton continued to involve himself in ex parte communications. Each time this issue arose, he claimed that the circumstances were different and he was not aware that what he did was a violation of the prohibition against ex parte communications. The sanction recommended by the Commission is inappropriately lenient. Judge Britton should be publicly reprimanded, suspended for thirty days without pay, and assessed all costs.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court