Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed findings that Linda S. Trigg, a former district magistrate judge, violated multiple provisions of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct. Because Trigg was no longer serving as a judge, the court ordered publication of the decision rather than imposing suspension or removal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court of Kansas retained disciplinary jurisdiction over misconduct committed by a judge who left the bench before the disciplinary proceeding concluded.
- Whether the Commission established by clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated the specified provisions of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct.
- Whether public censure was an appropriate available discipline for a former judge who was no longer subject to suspension or removal.
Holdings
- The Supreme Court of Kansas retains disciplinary jurisdiction over misconduct committed while a judge was serving, even if the judge leaves office before the proceeding concludes.
- The charges were established by clear and convincing evidence.
- Respondent violated Rules 1.1 and 1.2 of Canon 1 and Rules 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, and 2.16 of Canon 2.
- Public censure was the appropriate discipline because respondent was no longer serving as a judge and therefore could not be suspended or removed.
Key quotations
“The duty to protect the public from malfeasance by judges does not terminate the moment a judge steps down from office.” (at 7)
“Clear and convincing evidence is 'evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that "the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable."'” (at 8)
Factual background
While serving as a district magistrate judge, Linda S. Trigg presided over a probation-revocation hearing in Johnson County involving a defendant appearing pro se and in custody. According to the complete hearing transcript, Trigg summarily revoked probation and remanded the defendant to custody without allowing the defendant an opportunity to be heard. Trigg also failed to respond to repeated investigative contacts, refused or failed to accept a cease-and-desist order, did not answer the formal complaint, and did not attend the disciplinary hearing.
Procedural history
The Commission investigated respondent's conduct, issued a notice of formal proceedings and formal complaint, and held a hearing after respondent failed to answer or appear. The hearing panel found violations of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, and 2.16 and recommended public censure. The Supreme Court of Kansas reviewed the uncontested proceeding, affirmed the panel's findings, concluded that it retained jurisdiction despite respondent's departure from the bench, and ordered publication of the decision.