Opinion
Docket No. 3 JD 95
10-31-1995
In re: Bradford Clark Timbers District Justice In and For Magisterial District 31-2-03
Court of Judicial Discipline
BEFORE:
Honorable Joseph F. McCloskey, President Judge
Honorable William F. Burns
Honorable William C. Cassebaum
Honorable Samuel J. Magaro
Honorable Robert A. Messa
OPINION IN SUPPORT OF SANCTIONS
This Court does not accept alcoholism as an excuse for misconduct by a judicial officer for the improper performance of his duties or conduct which brings disrepute upon the judicial system and causes the public to lose confidence in the system. We do recognize that alcoholism is a disease. The Court finds that alcoholism may be considered a mitigating circumstance when deciding what sanction is appropriate. The Court may impose the less severe sanction of suspension, rather than removal, when the nature of a judicial officer's misconduct in light of his alcoholism warrants such reduction in sanction.
Cassebaum, J., files a dissenting opinion in which Messa. J., joins.
McGinley and Donohue, J.J., did not participate in the consideration or disposition of this decision.
IN RE: Bradford Clark Timbers District Justice In and For Magisterial District 31-2-03
Court of Judicial Discipline
Docket No. 3 JD 95
BEFORE:
Honorable Joseph F. McCloskey, President Judge
Honorable William F. Burns
Honorable William C. Cassebaum
Honorable Samuel J. Magaro
Honorable Robert A. Messa
DISSENTING OPINION BY JUDGE CASSEBAUM
I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision on sanctions. I would order the Respondent removed from office.
I agree with the majority's conclusion that the Respondent's alcoholism played a pivotal part in his wrongful conduct. I accept the Respondent's statements that he is in recovery and has not taken a drink of any alcoholic beverage since he was suspended in November, 1994. However, although I wholeheartedly endorse the Respondent's participation in recovery programs, I believe that the public's confidence in the Respondent's position as a judicial officer has been irreparably harmed by his conduct. The facts are clear that the Respondent's actions constituted misconduct in office, failure or neglect to perform the duties of office, conduct which prejudices the proper administration of justice and which brought the judicial office into disrepute. In this case, the effect of the Respondent's conduct regretfully outweighs his potential to serve.
Messa, J., joins in this dissent.
McGinley and Donohue, JJ., did not participate in the consideration or disposition of this decision.
Full details of decision:
Order (Burns, J. - October 31, 1995)
Opinion (Burns, J. - October 31, 1995)
Order (Burns, J. - February 27, 1996)
Decision (Burns, J. - February 27, 1996)
Per Curiam Order (April 18, 1996)
Per Curiam Opinion (April 18, 1996)
Per Curiam Order (March 26, 1997)
Decision Overview
NOTE: Information and Opinions returned by this system are not official. Certified and correct copies can be obtained from the Clerk of Court only. Furthermore, electronic opinion files may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed documents. Because of the conversions required to post opinions to this site, it is possible that the page numbers will not always conform to the original pages. If you wish to cite to a particular page of an opinion, it is suggested that you either obtain an original copy of that opinion from the Clerk of Court before doing so or note in your citation that you are citing from the website.