Judicial Conduct Comm'n v. Corwin (In re Application for Disciplinary Action Against Wickham Corwin)

3 Citing cases

  1. Disciplinary Bd. of the Supreme Court of State v. Matson (In re Matson)

    869 N.W.2d 128 (N.D. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    The Disciplinary Board noted that their Findings and Conclusions regarding multiple Rule violations was not “stacking” of charges or “piling on,” but rather an effort to show the breadth of Matson's violations. I have written before about what I perceived were unnecessary findings of Rule violations. See In re Disciplinary Action Against Corwin, 2014 ND 50, ¶ 26, 843 N.W.2d 830 (“Members of this Court have discouraged the unnecessary ‘stacking’ or ‘piling on’ of rule violations for the same conduct.”). See Disciplinary Bd. v. Lee, 2013 ND 151, ¶ 36, 835 N.W.2d 836 (Crothers, J., concurring specially); Disciplinary Bd. v. Rozan, 2011 ND 71, ¶ 25, 796 N.W.2d 384 (Crothers, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Disciplinary Bd. v. Wolff, 2010 ND 175, ¶¶ 28, 34, 788 N.W.2d 594 (Crothers, J., specially concurring.).

  2. Application for Disciplinary Action Against Carpenter v. Carpenter

    2015 N.D. 111 (N.D. 2015)   Cited 8 times

    Unnecessary “stacking” or “piling on” of rule violations for the same conduct is discouraged. See, e.g., Judicial Conduct Comm'n v. Corwin, 2014 ND 50, ¶ 26, 843 N.W.2d 830. We do not consider this issue because, even if Carpenter's conduct violated the rule, the sanction would not be affected.

  3. In re Andrew M. Hladio Magisterial Dist. Judge Magisterial Dist. 36-1-01 36TH Judicial Dist. Beaver Cnty.

    6 JD 2016 (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc. Feb. 1, 2019)

    This issue was addressed by the North Dakota Supreme Court upon review of the North Dakota Judicial Conduct Commission's application for discipline. In re Disciplinary Action Against Corwin, 843 N.W.2d 830 (N.D. 2014) (judge violated Canons by his conduct of sexually harassing and retaliating against court reporter, who repeatedly and explicitly rebuffed his advances). In his defense before the Commission hearing panel, Judge Corwin sought to introduce expert testimony to prove that his conduct did not violate federal and state sexual harassment laws.