Inquiry Into the Conduct of the Honorable Timothy Blakely

Summary

The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed judicial-misconduct allegations arising from Judge Timothy Blakely’s appointment of his personal divorce attorney as a mediator while negotiating a substantial reduction in his legal fees. The court found violations of multiple Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct canons and imposed censure plus a six-month suspension from judicial duties without pay, rejecting the Board’s recommendation of removal. The court also imposed a public reprimand as attorney discipline.

Holdings

1. Judge Blakely's actions constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brought the judicial office into disrepute and violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 4A, 4D(1)(a), and 4D(5) of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct.
2. The Board did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that an actual quid pro quo existed between the mediation appointments and the fee reduction, although the circumstances created an appearance that Blakely used his judicial position to obtain the discount.
3. Removal from office was not warranted; the appropriate judicial discipline was censure and suspension from judicial duties for six months without pay.
4. Blakely's conduct violated Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) and warranted a public reprimand as an attorney. If he ceased to be a judge before completion of the judicial suspension, he would be suspended from practicing law for the balance of that suspension.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Judge Blakely's negotiation and receipt of a substantial legal-fee reduction while appointing his personal attorney to provide mediation or related services constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and violated the cited Canons of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct.
2. Whether the evidence established an actual quid pro quo between the mediation appointments and the fee reduction.
3. Whether removal from judicial office was the appropriate sanction for the misconduct.
4. Whether the conduct also violated Minnesota Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) and warranted attorney discipline.

Disposition

other