Every once in a while, a case comes along that turns the sock inside out, like a motion to withdraw a guilty plea where the defendant’s former attorney testifies for the prosecution, or when attorneys sue their former law firms. In these types of cases, confidential workings are thrust into public view.
The judiciary’s inner workings are shielded from public view, and for good reason. The judiciary’s structural role as an independent branch of government is just as important as its substantive decisions. But on very rare occasions, the sock turns inside out on the judicial system. One example is the Rhode Island Commission on Judicial Discipline & Tenure’s Report and Recommendation that recommended the removal of Judge Ovalles. In a 238-page report of brobdingnagian length issued in August 2017, the Commission found that Judge Ovalles committed over 40 violations of the then-existing Canons of Judicial Conduct (the Rhode Island Supreme Court has since revised the Canons on January 31, 2018). After 18 days of hearings and testimony from 55 witnesses, the Commission voted 13 to 1 to recommend the removal of Judge Ovalles as an Associate Judge of the Rhode Island District Court. An unfortunate turn of events for all involved.
The Commission’s Report and Recommendation is chock full of testimony and discussion on the inner workings of the court system. What can the Commission’s Report tell us about judging? Are the rules different for these demi-gods of the judiciary who enjoy lifetime tenure? In a nutshell, no. The Commission’s Report shows that the internal norms and rules that apply in most law firms and other workplaces also apply to judges.
Judges counsel and mentor each other, just like attorneys do, and relationships between judges matter. In extraordinary testimony before the Commission, Chief Judge LaFazia described her interactions with Judge Ovalles. Chief Judge LaFazia testified that she counseled Judge Ovalles many times over the years in response to communications she received about potential legal errors, courtroom demeanor or interactions with staff. Eventually, Chief Judge LaFazia testified that the mentoring relationship broke down and their conversations became more hostile.
Relatedly, judges care what attorneys and litigants think, and they care how judges treat attorneys and judicial staff. The Commission’s Report describes several communications between Chief Judge LaFazia and attorneys or other judges about Judge Ovalles, and several complaints from judicial staff. Many of these communications reached Chief Judge LaFazia informally and not through any official complaint mechanism. Judges build relationships with their staff and with attorneys over time, just like attorneys build relationships with other attorneys over time.
The Rhode Island Commission on Judicial Discipline & Tenure’s Report and Recommendation on Judge Ovalles provides a rare look into the inner workings of the judiciary. But the peek behind the curtain isn’t surprising — the workplace norms that apply in other settings apply with equal force to the Judiciary.