In re John F. Lallo

Summary

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed disciplinary proceedings against an associate judge of the Administrative Adjudication Court who admitted to a felony false-declaration conviction and repeated absences from work to gamble at Foxwoods Resort Casino. The court upheld removal and a monetary sanction in the nature of restitution, but remanded for a more accurate calculation of the amount. The court also held that the transcript of the mitigation proceeding was a public document because the requirements for waiving a public hearing under Rule 20 had not been satisfied.

Holdings

1. The Supreme Court has plenary authority to discipline members of the bar and judiciary and may impose sanctions, including sanctions not expressly specified in the statute, when reviewing the commission's recommendation.
2. The monetary sanction was civil and restitutionary, rather than punitive, because it reimbursed the public for salary paid for periods during which Lallo abandoned his judicial responsibilities.
3. The imposition of restitution was proper, but the $28,000 calculation was not sufficiently accurate and had to be recalculated to account for the fact that Lallo missed only portions of some workdays.
4. Supreme Court approval is required before a commission waiver of the public-hearing requirement becomes effective, and the respondent must formally admit the allegations as consent to the commission's recommended sanction before the waiver and any closed mitigation hearing may occur.
5. The October 18, 2000 transcript was a public document because the proceeding was not protected by Rule 20, did not concern a private reprimand, and was filed in connection with a recommendation for sanctions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the commission and the Supreme Court had authority to impose or recommend a monetary sanction against a judicial officer.
2. Whether the monetary sanction was punitive and therefore required a jury trial.
3. Whether the statutory authority to recommend removal included authority to recommend remedial monetary measures.
4. Whether Supreme Court approval was required before the commission could waive a public hearing under Rule 20.
5. Whether the transcript of the commission's October 18, 2000 proceeding was a public document subject to release.

Disposition

remanded