Judicial Council explains Judge Estelle ‘no’ vote

On Tuesday, voters in the Mat-Su Valley will be asked to decide whether nine state trial court judges and one Supreme Court justice should be retained for another term in office. The Alaska Judicial Council — a citizens’ commission tasked with providing the public with information about judges’ performance — recommends that voters vote “yes” for all judges on the ballot except the Judicial Council recommends that voters vote “no” against the retention of Palmer District Court Judge William Estelle. The Judicial Council unanimously recommended against Judge Estelle’s retention based on its review of his performance in signing 16 pay affidavits in which he swore that “no matter currently referred to me for opinion or decision has been uncompleted or undecided by me for a period of more than six months” when in fact he did have uncompleted matters more than six months old waiting for his decision.

Because it is a rare event that the Judicial Council recommends against the retention of a judge, voters may wish to consider additional information about the council’s recommendation. The following information is taken from the findings of the Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigated an ethics complaint against Judge Estelle, after a full public hearing at which Judge Estelle testified. These findings also were adopted by the Alaska Supreme Court without objection from Judge Estelle:

• On March 28, 2013, the Judicial Conduct Commission initiated an ethics investigation of Judge Estelle “based on a report from a litigant.” The litigant sought to disqualify Judge Estelle from his case and “alleged that Judge Estelle had falsely signed an affidavit claiming he had no matters ripe for decision more than six months.” Judge Estelle granted the disqualification motion on March 28, 2013, and the next day, Judge Estelle’s attorney called the Conduct Commission to “self-report” a problem with four pay affidavits related to that case. Later, Judge Estelle made a written “self-report” at the request of the Conduct Commission, and that report cited additional possible problems with pay affidavits.

• The Judicial Conduct Commission found that Judge Estelle received printed reports generated by the Alaska Court System’s automated case management system, CourtView, which listed undecided cases and the date they were six-months undecided. When a matter listed on that report was “pending for close to or more than six months,” Judge Estelle’s judicial assistant “would highlight that matter in pink and place it on Judge Estelle’s chair instead of putting it in his in-basket, to draw particular attention to the matter.”

• Although CourtView was not available to judges in earlier years, the CourtView automated case reports were “routinely” provided to Judge Estelle during all relevant periods when the 16 affidavits were filed.

• The Judicial Conduct Commission found that “Judge Estelle knew that each of these cases was old and needed a decision, i.e. potentially pending for more than six months without a decision.”

• The Judicial Conduct Commission found “by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Estelle was aware of the six month rule and of the specific language in the affidavit when he signed the affidavits and that he consciously disregarded the risk that he did have matters pending for more than six months when he signed the 16 affidavits at issue.”

• The Conduct Commission found that “if a litigant had not raised the delay issue with the Commission and with Judge Estelle, it is likely that his conduct would have continued indefinitely.”

• The Judicial Conduct Commission found that “Judge Estelle acted recklessly” because he “was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the affidavits were incorrect; the risk was a gross deviation from the standard of conduct a reasonable person would observe when signing an affidavit.”

• Finally, the Judicial Conduct Commission found that Judge Estelle “failed to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary;” “failed to maintain professional competence in judicial administration;” and “failed to dispose of matters promptly and efficiently.”

Judges routinely accept and rely on sworn affidavits — filed by police officers making search warrant applications and by litigants and attorneys in civil and criminal court proceedings. When an officer, litigant, or attorney swears in an affidavit filed with the court that a fact is true, and the judge learns that it is not true, the consequences for such actions usually are harsh, even for a single incident. Judges themselves are held to a very high standard, one that is “greater than that expected of lawyers and other persons in society.”

The Alaska Judicial Council’s purpose in taking the rare step of recommending against a judge is not to punish or discipline but to provide its independent assessment and recommendation regarding whether the voters should give the judge another term in office. The Alaska Judicial Council agrees with the Conduct Commission’s conclusion that “Judge Estelle’s conduct caused actual injury to the public’s perception of the integrity of the judiciary” and therefore recommends that Judge Estelle should not be retained in office by the voters.

Susanne DiPietro is the Executive Director of the Alaska Judicial Council.