Caperton v Massey Coal put the issue of judicial recusal front and center in American jurisprudence last year, with the knotty problem of campaign contributions at the center. Here's a story from New Zealand that shows that the issue is global, and not necessarily linked to judicial elections. In bare bones form:
- A judge of the New Zealand Court of Appeals sat on a case in which a lawyer to whom the judge owed nearly $170,000 represented one of the parties.
- The judge did not disclose the debt, and ruled in favor of the lawyer's client.
- The Supreme Court sent the case back for a rehearing, saying that this relationship "might raise a question in the mind of the observer about the judge's ability to address the issues raised."
- While the rehearing was pending, the judge was elevated by appointment to the Supreme Court.
- A former judge lodged a formal complaint accusing the judge of a "serious breach of judicial ethics" for failing to disclose the debt.
- The Police Minister, named acting attorney-general for this case because the Attorney-General who would normally handle the case and the judge were previously partners in the same law firm, announced that a judicial conduct panel, with the power to recommend removing Justice Wilson from the bench, would conduct an inquiry.
- The panel was necessary because the matter could not be referred to the Chief Justice, as the Chief Justice and her husband had until recently been involved with the judge in a joint racehorse-owning partnership.
An editorial in the New Zealand Herald diagnosed the problem this way: "The legal profession, at least in its upper echelons, is so small that there are bound to be close and long-standing relationships between senior lawyers and judges which may create the appearance of conflicts of interest." Perspective: New Zealand has a population of 4.3 million, and 10,500 lawyers. Michigan has a population of 10 million, and 40,000 lawyers. Full story: Earth Times.
