Summary
The South Carolina Supreme Court accepted an agreement for discipline by consent concerning a Charleston County magistrate's misconduct. The court found that the magistrate improperly facilitated preferential release of a municipal judge, failed to conduct required bond hearings for other detainees, and made a racially offensive remark, warranting a public reprimand.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Court should accept the respondent's Agreement for Discipline by Consent.
- Whether the respondent's admitted misconduct warranted a public reprimand.
Holdings
- The Court accepted the Agreement for Discipline by Consent after the respondent admitted violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules for Judicial Disciplinary Enforcement.
- A public reprimand was appropriate because the respondent's failure to comply with the Chief Justice's Administrative Order, combined with favoritism toward Judge Mendelsohn and the racial remark, warranted public discipline.
Key quotations
“Standing alone, respondent’s failure to comply with the Chief Justice’s Administrative Order would not necessitate imposition of a public reprimand. Combined, however, with respondent’s favoritism towards Judge Mendelsohn and his racial remark, the Court deems a public reprimand appropriate.” (366 S.C. at 283)
Factual background
The respondent, a Charleston County magistrate, intervened in the DUI arrest of Charleston Municipal Court Judge Joseph S. Mendelsohn and arranged for a bond to be entered so Mendelsohn could be released before the regularly scheduled hearing. The respondent made it appear that the bond had been set at the scheduled morning time and did not conduct bond hearings for the other detainees, contrary to a Chief Justice administrative order. In a separate bond hearing, the respondent repeated a racially derogatory statement to an African-American defendant.
Procedural history
The respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent under Rule 21, RJDE. The respondent admitted misconduct and consented to a confidential admonition, public reprimand, or definite suspension of no more than sixty days. The Supreme Court accepted the agreement and imposed a public reprimand.