Miss. Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Bustin
| Docket Number: | 2011-JP-00552-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-29-2011 Opinion Author: Waller, C.J. Holding: Suspended for 30 days without pay, Publicly reprimanded, Fined $500 & Assessed costs of $100 |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Judicial discipline - Willful misconduct - Conflict of interest - Sanctions Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson, P.J., Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce and King, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Randolph, J. Dissenting Author : Dickinson, P.J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-13-2011 Appealed from: Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance Judge: H. David Clark Disposition: The commission and Appellee jointly moved the supreme court to accept the agreed findings of fact and to approve the recommended sanctions - a public reprimand, a $500 fine, and assessment of costs in the amount of $100. Case Number: 2010-115 |
|
| Note: | Joint Motion for Approval of Recommendations filed by the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance and Carol Ann Bustin is granted. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance |
JOHN B. TONEY
DARLENE D. BALLARD
AYANNA BATISTE BUTLER |
||
| Appellee: | Carol Ann Bustin | JAMES K. DUKES, 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 - Conflict of interest - Sanctions |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance filed a Formal Complaint against Lamar County Justice Court Judge Carol Ann Bustin. The complaint charged that Judge Bustin, while serving as an attorney for David C. Lema’s ex-wife, executed a felony arrest warrant for Lema based upon an affidavit submitted by the ex-wife. The Commission and Judge Bustin jointly move the Court to accept the agreed findings of fact and to approve the recommended sanctions — a public reprimand, a $500 fine, and assessment of costs in the amount of $100. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Willful misconduct The Commission found that Judge Bustin had violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3B(1), 3B(2), 3B(8), 3E(1)(a)(b)(d), and 4A of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Bustin failed to recognize the conflict of interest between representing a client in a divorce and child-custody dispute, and simultaneously executing a warrant, based upon that client’s affidavit, for the arrest of the client’s ex-husband. By doing so, she misused her office and impugned the public’s perception of the judiciary. By executing an arrest warrant based upon an affidavit submitted by her own client, Judge Bustin failed to observe high standards of conduct. Judge Bustin allowed her relationship with her client to influence her judicial conduct, and she lent the prestige of her office to advance that client’s interest. Judge Bustin violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3B(1), 3B(2), 3E(1)(a)(b)(d), and 4A of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Her actions, moreover, constituted willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute. Issue 2: Sanctions In determining proper sanctions for judicial misconduct, the Court considers the length and character of the judge’s public service; whether there is any prior caselaw on point; the magnitude of the offense and the harm suffered; whether the misconduct is an isolated incident or evidences a pattern of misconduct; whether moral turpitude was involved; and the presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Judge Bustin has served as a justice court judge for eight years. The record is silent concerning the character of her public service. The principal offense here is that Judge Bustin used the criminal process to influence a civil proceeding. In that regard, her behavior is similar to those cases in which judges have used the criminal process to collect or enforce a civil debt. Judge Bustin used her office to further the private interests of her client. Her actions were an abuse of judicial power and impugned the reputation of the judiciary. The brief in support of the joint motion states that Judge Bustin has “received a private admonishment from the Commission for similar conduct that involved a conflict of interest between her private law practice and that of her office as justice court judge.” Despite this warning, Judge Bustin chose to engage in this unethical practice again. Judge Bustin’s abuse of office and misuse of judicial powers involves moral turpitude, because she willfully misrepresented herself as a neutral arbiter and abused her position as a judge by signing an arrest warrant based on an affidavit submitted, ex parte, by her own client. She thus interfered with the administration of justice. Judge Bustin has agreed that her actions were improper, and she has joined the motion for approval of recommendations. Judge Bustin also stipulated that she has not qualified for re-election as Justice Court Judge. Given that Judge Bustin’s actions not only were egregious and implicated moral turpitude but she has engaged in similar behavior in the past, a harsher sanction is appropriate. Thus, a thirty-day suspension in addition to the proposed recommended sanctions is proper. While Judge Bustin has stipulated that she will not run for re-election, this does not foreclose the need to apply appropriate sanctions. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
