In re Inquiry relating to Magistrate Court Judge Norman B. Sortor

Kansas Supreme Court1976-06-12No. No. 48,419

220 Kan. 177551 P.2d 1255

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the Commission's findings and conclusions that the judge violated Canons 3 A (3) and (4) of the Judicial Conduct rules, and the court imposed public censure on the judge and directed him to pay the costs of the proceeding.

The Kansas Supreme Court addressed disciplinary proceedings against a magistrate court judge for violations of judicial conduct standards. The judge admitted to charges that he had been rude and discourteous to lawyers and litigants on various occasions, and had twice terminated proceedings without allowing interested parties to be heard. The court found that while the judge's conduct did not reflect malicious intent, his temperamental outbursts and discourteous behavior were incompatible with the fair and impartial treatment that justice requires.

The court emphasized that magistrate courts handle the majority of Americans' contact with the judicial system and therefore judges in those courts must maintain the same standards of courtesy and consideration as judges in higher courts. Although the court acknowledged the heavy caseloads and time pressures in magistrate courts, it concluded that efficiency cannot justify preventing litigants from being fairly heard or excusing judicial discourtesy.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a magistrate court judge violated judicial conduct canons by acting rudely and discourteously toward litigants and attorneys
Whether a judge may terminate proceedings without allowing parties to be heard
Standards of judicial conduct required in courts of limited jurisdiction

Procedural posture

The Commission on Judicial Qualifications notified the judge of charges; the judge filed a written admission of specific charges, making a formal hearing unnecessary; the Commission made findings recommending censure; and the judge accepted the recommendation, bringing the matter before the supreme court for final disposition.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

ORDER OF PUBLIC CENSURE

This is an original proceeding in discipline against the Honorable Norman B. Sortor, Judge of Division No. 2 of the Magistrate Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas.

Formal proceedings commenced with the mailing of a Notice to the Judge by the Commission on Judicial Qualifications, all as provided by Rule No. 612 (214 Kan. cv) of this court. Subsequently, the judge filed a written admission of certain specific charges, and a formal hearing was therefore unnecessary. The Commission made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and concluded that Judge Sortor had violated certain of the Canons of Judicial Conduct set forth in our Rule No. 612 (214 Kan. xciv). The Commission recommended censure. Judge Sortor promptly elected to accept the recommendation of the Commission. In this posture the matter comes before us.

The Canons involved are Canons 3 A (3) and (4). These read in applicable part as follows:

“(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom he deal in his official capacity

“(4) A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full right to be heard according to law . . .” (Rule No. 601 of Supreme Court of Kansas, 214 Kan. xciv, xcv.)

We carefully reviewed the record before the Commission and concur in its findings and conclusions. We need not burden this record with a detailed statement of the factual background, but deem it sufficient to state that the record establishes that on various occasions and while in the performance of his official duties as a judge, respondent was rude and discourteous to lawyers and litigants alike, and on two occasions he terminated proceedings before him without granting to the interested parties that right to be heard which justice demands and which litigants have a right to expect in our courts.

Lest we be misunderstood we should observe that these instances do not demonstrate any malevolent purpose or motive on the part of Judge Sortor. They simply display temperamental actions, comments and outbursts inimical to that courteous, fair and impartial consideration which is the hallmark of justice. Such unfortunate judicial conduct reflects adversely upon the judiciary as a whole and creates a bad image and impression of courts in general. It cannot be tolerated.

The vast majority of Americans have their sole contact with American Courts in state courts of limited jurisdiction — the small claims, police and magistrate courts. Judges of those courts should be no less courteous to and considerate of litigants and counsel than should judges of other trial and appellate tribunals. While we recognize the vast volume of litigation handled by the magistrate courts, the pressures of such caseloads, and the ever present need to terminate cases with dispatch, we cannot countenance the handling of cases in any court in such a manner as to preclude to the litigants a fair opportunity to be heard, nor can we sanction judicial discourtesy to litigants and counsel. The persons appearing before Judge Sortor in the cited instances were not accorded the kind of treatment mandated by Canons 3 A (3) and (4) and required in our system of justice.

Accordingly, we conclude that Norman B. Sortor should be and he is hereby censured by this court, and directed to pay the costs of this proceeding. This Order shall be published, and shall constitute the public record in this matter.

XT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated at Topeka this 12th day of June, 1976.