Overview of the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct

This section describes the makeup and responsibilities of the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Overview

The Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC) is an independent agency established by Section 1 of Chapter 211C of the Massachusetts General Laws. According to its website,

[CJC] is the state agency responsible for investigating complaints alleging that a state court judge has engaged in judicial misconduct or has a disability preventing him or her from properly performing judicial duties.

The CJC is also responsible for pursuing, when it is appropriate, remedial action or discipline against state court judges.

CJC has a nine-member board consisting of three judges, appointed by the Supreme Judicial Court; three lawyers, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Trial Court; and three non-lawyers, appointed by the Governor. These members serve without compensation but are reimbursed for all expenses they reasonably incur in performing their duties, and they are expected to serve six-year terms. An executive director (ED), appointed by the board, oversees CJC’s day-to-day activities. The board also determines other ED duties and responsibilities, which include receiving and screening complaints, conducting investigations, and recommending dispositions. Additionally, the ED is responsible for hiring and supervising CJC staff members, maintaining CJC records and statistics, and preparing the annual report of CJC activities.

For fiscal years 2018 and 2019, CJC received direct appropriations¹ of $760,970 and $848,768, respectively. As of December 31, 2019, CJC had six employees, including the ED. Its office is at 11 Beacon Street in Boston.

Complaint Intake Processing and Screening

Complaints may be submitted to CJC by mail (the Postal Service or other delivery services), in person, or electronically on the CJC website. Upon receiving a complaint, the administrative assistant date-stamps it as received and logs it into an electronic spreadsheet. The administrative assistant then assembles documentation for the complaint and emails it to the ED for screening. To determine whether a complaint is in CJC’s jurisdiction, the ED reviews it for allegations that, if true, would constitute either misconduct² by a judge or a mental or physical disability affecting a judge’s performance. If the complaint alleges neither judicial misconduct nor a disability that would affect the judge’s performance, it is screened out. Rule 6(B) of the CJC Rules of Procedure requires complaints to be screened promptly upon receipt by CJC. Although this rule does not specify a definite period of time, CJC’s internal control plan states that CJC “is committed to screening complaints within, at most, two weeks of receipt.”

According to the ED, CJC receives between 300 and 400 complaints annually. CJC’s 2019 annual report states, “Many complaints are filed with the Commission by parties who are disappointed with how their cases came out and believe the judge was not ‘fair’ or that his or her decision was wrong.” As a result of this, the majority of complaints are dismissed (i.e., screened out) because they are outside CJC’s jurisdiction. CJC dismissed 844 (86%) of the 985 complaints received during the audit period.

Complaints Received by CJC during the Audit Period*

Calendar Year	Complaints Received	Complaints Docketed (Screened In)	Complaints Dismissed (Screened Out)
2018	435	56	379
2019	550	85	465
Total	985	141	844

*     We obtained statistical information from CJC’s Complaint Management System.

 

For screened-out complaints, the ED sends an email to the administrative assistant with a completed screening sheet. The administrative assistant creates a case in the Complaint Management System (CMS),³ labels it as a possible future complaint, and uploads the complaint documentation to CMS. These possible future complaints about a judge may be reconsidered if additional complaints or details later arise against that judge and put the original complaint into CJC’s jurisdiction.

For screened-in complaints, the ED sends the administrative assistant an email with the complaint and screening form attached, indicating that the complaint is to be docketed. The administrative assistant creates a case in CMS, labels it as a docketed complaint with the appropriate staff assignment, and uploads the complaint documentation to CMS.

In some cases, a complaint alleges judicial misconduct or disability, but the ED has determined the complaint to be one of the following, according to CJC’s Rules of Procedure: “frivolous or unfounded,” “stale” (having occurred more than a year before the filing of the complaint), or “anonymous.” If it is determined to be one of these, the complaint must first be brought before CJC to be screened, and a majority vote must determine whether CJC will proceed with an investigation.

Complaint Investigation Process

Once a case has been screened, docketed, and assigned to an attorney, an investigation is conducted. An investigation may include listening to audio recordings of court proceedings, reviewing transcripts and other documents, interviewing witnesses, and conducting legal research. The assigned CJC investigator prepares a confidential memorandum⁴ of the investigation for CJC to review. Investigators have up to 90 days after a complaint is filed to finish evaluating all evidence. For investigations that require more time to complete, the ED can request an extension of time at the next CJC monthly meeting. Additional time for investigations, if needed, is authorized at each meeting.

CJC Review

Before each monthly CJC meeting, the ED prepares a transmittal letter to CJC board members that includes a list of enclosures, which catalogs all completed investigation memoranda forwarded to the board members for the meeting. In addition, s/he includes a case extension list for all investigations that will require more than 90 days to complete. A complete copy of each confidential memorandum is sent with the transmittal letter to the board members. The board members review each investigation report, any response received from the judge, and any other materials deemed relevant. After considering the investigation of a complaint, CJC votes for one of the following actions: (1) to dismiss the matter, (2) to propose to the judge that the complaint be resolved through an agreed disposition, (3) to propose to the judge that the complaint be resolved through a CJC Rule 13 referral to the Supreme Judicial Court, or (4) to proceed to signing a sworn complaint or statement of allegations. (See Appendix for additional details on CJC actions subsequent to investigations.)

1.    These amounts represent appropriations for account 0321-0001, which funds the general administration of CJC, including salaries and wages, employee benefits, and operating expenses.

 

2.    CJC’s website defines judicial misconduct as including, but not limited to, “a judge creating an appearance of bias, treating a party discourteously, failing to give all interested parties a full opportunity to make their arguments, or failing to make a decision in a prompt, efficient, and fair manner.”

3.     During the audit period, CJC used CMS as its case management system. It is a customized application that allows CJC to enter dates (e.g., complaint receipt date, complaint close date) associated with electronic versions of hardcopy correspondence from third parties and CJC-created files.

4.    Confidential memoranda prepared by CJC investigators for use by CJC constitute privileged attorney-client materials.

 

Date published:	May 28, 2021