Summary
The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed judicial-misconduct findings against former Minnesota Tax Court Judge George W. Perez. The court held that Perez violated Minnesota law and judicial-conduct rules by delaying decisions, making false certifications, and misstating submission dates in orders. The court imposed public censure, referral to the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation, and supervision of any future Minnesota bar-admission application.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the judicial-discipline proceeding became moot when the Minnesota Senate's refusal to confirm Perez ended his service as a tax court judge.
- Whether the Board proved by clear and convincing evidence that Perez violated Minnesota Statutes section 271.20 and the cited provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
- Whether removal from judicial office was an appropriate sanction.
- What discipline was appropriate given Perez's misconduct and the fact that he was no longer serving as a judge and was not admitted to practice law in Minnesota.
Holdings
- The proceeding was not moot because the court could still grant effective relief by imposing discipline, including public censure.
- Perez violated Minn. Stat. § 271.20 by failing to issue decisions within three months after submission in ten cases and by attempting to extend the deadline through post-trial conferences without the written consent required by the statute.
- Perez committed judicial misconduct by falsely certifying compliance with section 271.20 and making false statements in orders concerning the dates cases were submitted for decision.
- Removal from judicial office was not warranted because Perez's misconduct, although severe and egregious, did not rise to the level of misconduct for which the court had previously removed judges.
- The appropriate discipline was public censure, referral of the disciplinary materials to the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation, and supervision by the Minnesota Supreme Court of any future application by Perez for admission to the Minnesota Bar.
Key quotations
“Because we are able to grant relief by imposing discipline, we hold that the case is not moot.” (at 566)
“We make an independent assessment of whether the Board has proven that a judge violated a provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct.” (at 567)
“After a careful review, we conclude the following discipline is warranted: public censure, referral to the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation, and supervision by this court if Judge Perez files an application to be a member of the Minnesota Bar in the future.” (at 569-570)
Factual background
George W. Perez served as a judge and chief judge of the Minnesota Tax Court. Over an extended period, he delayed decisions beyond the three-month statutory deadline, used post-trial conferences to reset purported deadlines without obtaining the statutorily required written consent, falsely certified compliance with the deadline requirement, and misstated submission dates in several orders. After the Board initiated proceedings, the Minnesota Senate refused to confirm his appointment, ending his judicial service.
Procedural history
The Board filed a formal judicial-discipline complaint in November 2012. After an evidentiary hearing, the three-member panel found that Perez violated Minnesota Statutes section 271.20 and provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct by issuing decisions late, falsely certifying compliance, and making false statements in decisions; it recommended censure, a nine-month unpaid suspension, and additional restrictions. The Supreme Court of Minnesota independently reviewed the misconduct and sanction, denied the motion to dismiss as moot, upheld the misconduct findings, and imposed different discipline.