Following five years of legal wrangling, the Utah Supreme Court publicly reprimanded 3rd District Judge David S. Young on Friday for violating two canons of judicial conduct.
The decision comes three years after a retention election in which Young kept his office by less than 2 percent of the vote. The judge had come under fire for controversial rulings regarding women and gays.The reprimand stemmed from a July 11, 1994, telephone call Young made to an attorney representing Park City School District in a case pending before the judge. The opposing attorney was never informed of the telephone call.
"Judge Young engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, which brought the judicial office into disrepute," wrote Justice Leonard H. Russon in the unanimous decision.
Young had earlier ordered a student returned to class who had been expelled for bringing a gun to school. He called the district's attorney when he read a newspaper quote from Superintendent Don Fielder saying the student would be disciplined the next school year.
In a complaint filed with the Judicial Conduct Commission, Fielder says that during the telephone call Young "extorted settlement" involving attorney fees in the student's lawsuit against the district. The superintendent said Young threatened to award the full request for attorney fees to the student's attorney unless the district promised not to rediscipline the student.
The Judicial Conduct Commission recommended Young be publicly reprimanded for violating three canons of judicial conduct -- initiating an ex parte communication, or one in the interest of only one side, in a pending case; making a non-public comment that might interfere with a fair trial or hearing; and failing to disqualify himself in a case where his impartiality might be questioned.
The commission said the reprimand was justified because Young refused to acknowledge his misconduct, the conduct fostered a degree of disrespect from the judiciary, and the phone call was placed to "satisfy his personal passions of annoyance and dismay."
Young challenged the commission's findings. The Supreme Court sided with the commission on two of the recommendations, finding Young initiated the ex parte telephone call and interfered with a fair hearing.
"Judge Young initiated the call at least in part because he disapproved of the school district's purported plan to rediscipline the student," Russon wrote.
The court said Young's phone call gave the school district an unfair advantage in the negotiations and allowed the district to settle for less than the judge would have awarded.
"Judge Young violated a fundamental tenet of our judicial system -- that those who seek to resolve their disputes in court receive fair treatment," the opinion says.
The public reprimand is one of the least severe punishments. The justices could have opted for a private reprimand. More severe punishments could have included censure, suspension, involuntary retirement and expulsion from office.
Young's attorney, Dan Berman, downplayed the outcome.
"Nobody ever accused Judge Young of acting in bad faith. This wasn't the result of any nefarious kind of conduct at all," Berman said. "One thing he's always said is he regretted making the phone call, but in the phone call he didn't discuss the merits of the case."
Young is the third district judge to be reprimanded since 1988, according to Steven H. Stewart, executive director of the Judicial Conduct Commission.
The decision resolves a five-year legal battle that included a Supreme Court decision decimating the Judicial Conduct Commission. The justices decided in July 1997 that legislators serving on the commission violated the state's law separating the judicial and legislative branches.
The court unexpectedly reversed its position six months later, reconstituting the commission. Berman said Friday's ruling marks the end of the battle.
Young, who won't face a retention election for another three years, has been the topic of several debates on whether to change the state's judicial retention elections. Several lawmakers plan to propose legislation that would increase the percentage of votes needed for a judge to retain his or her office to a supermajority -- about 65 percent. The Constitutional Revision Commission is currently debating alternatives to retention elections.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.