United States v. Seefried

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: October 29, 2022
• Docket: Criminal No. 2021-0287
• Status: Published

Opinion

Classification/Desc Year Corpus Source or Source Type Excerpt of Concordance Line Contextual summary ription As we said in both Benoit and Ross , in determin Maine, In the Matter of ing appropriate disciplinary sanctions , we must Considering appropriate sanctions for Ronald L. KELLAM, be careful to assure the orderly administration of a judge whose discourtesy to parties Judicial discipline, 1986 COCAP 503 A.2d 1308 justice in the public interest . rose to violation of the Judicial Code. judicial proceeding We agree with the finding of the hearing board th at the respondent ’s conduct violated C.R.C.P. 24 1.6 and the following disciplinary rules in the Co de of Professional Responsibility : DR 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( a lawyer shall not violate a disci plinary rule ) ; DR 6 - 101 ( A ) ( 2 ) ( a lawyer shall not handle a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circu mstances ) ; DR 6 - 101 ( A ) ( 3 ) ( a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him ) ; DR 7 - 101 ( A ) ( l ) ( a lawyer shall not intentionally fa il to seek the lawful objectives of his client ) ; D R7- Colorado, The PEOPLE 101 ( A ) ( 3 ) ( a lawyer shall not prejudice or d of the State of Colorado, amage his client during the course of the professi Complainant, v. Thomas onal rela tionship ) ; and DR 1 - H. MAY, Attorney- 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) ( a lawyer shall not engage in con Finding lawyer's failure to apprise Respondent, 745 P.2d duct that is prejudicial to the administration of ju client of case status violated state Discipline of lawyer, 1987 COCAP 218 stice ) . professional conduct rules. judicial proceeding

Texas, Phil P. O’NEAL, Appellant, v. The Nevertheless , there comes a time when the order COUNTY OF SAN ly administration of justice requires that the appe Discussing failure of court reporter SABA, Appellee, 577 llate process be not delayed further by the absenc timely to prepare statement of facts Judicial proceeding, 1979 COCAP S.W.2d 795 e of the statement of facts . needed for appeal. not delaying Michigan, PEOPLE v. KAMIN; PEOPLE v. In Rich , this Court refused retroactive applicatio AUSTIN; PEOPLE v. n of a jury instruction on the defense of intoxicati CARGILL; PEOPLE v. on and specific intent because of the marked effe HARRISON, 405 Mich. ct on the administration of justice in view of the Discussing reasons for a new rule's Judicial proceeding, 1979 COCAP 482 profound reliance on the old rule . exclusively prospective application jury instruction Illinois, INTERNATIONAL Although summary judgment is an important tool SOCIETY FOR in the administration of justice and its use encou KRISHNA raged in proper cases ( Fooden v. Board of Gover CONSCIOUSNESS, nors ( 1971 ) , 48 Ill. 2d 580 , 586 , 272 N.E. 2d INC., Plaintiff- 497 ; Allen v. Meyer ( 1958 ) , 14 Ill. 2d 284 , 29 Appellant, v. THE 2 , 152 N.E. 2d 576 ) , courts must remain cautio CITY OF EVANSTON us not to preempt the right to trial by jury where et al., Defendants- a material dispute may exist ( Anderson v. Doric Appellees, 53 Ill. App. k ( 3rd Dist . 1975 ) , 28 Ill . App . 3d 225 , 227 , Discussing impropriety of grant of 1977 COCAP 3d 443 327 N.E. 2d 541 ) . summary judgment below. Judicial proceeding Because the issue has potentially far - D. Mass., UNITED reaching ramifications with respect to the orderl Asserting the ability of the court to STATES of America v. y and effective administration of justice in the di defer ruling on an evidentiary motion Judicial proceeding, John R. BARLETTA, strict court , it is appropriate that this court detail against Government's contrary judicial power & 1980 COCAP 500 F. Supp. 739 the basis for its determination . argument. prerogative The imposition of the ethical obligation of honest y upon lawyers under DR 1 - Kansas, State of Kansas, 102 ( A ) ( 4 ) and subsequent discipline for viol Petitioner, v. J. R. ation of the rule is permissible and may be neces Discussing tenstion between ethical Russell, Respondent, sary in the interests of the administration of justi rules and lawyer's First Amendment 1980 COCAP 227 Kan. 897 ce . rights. Discipline of lawyer A literal interpretation of Article I , § 22 of the C onstitution of North Dakota would wreak havoc with established judicial practices in that it would N. Dakota, KFGO allow public access to all phases of the administr RADIO, INC. and ation of justice , including chambers ’ conference WDAY, Inc., Plaintiffs s , plea bargaining and settlement conferences , a and Appellees, v. doption proceedings , those juvenile proceedings Discussing ramifications of state Judicial proceeding, Cynthia ROTHE, 298 presently closed , grand jury proceedings , and ap constitutional provision concerning judicial power & 1980 COCAP N.W.2d 505 pellate court conferences . public's access to proceedings. prerogative “ In a proceeding in which the Commission finds that : ( 1 ) the subject matter is generally known to the public ; ( 2 ) there is broad public interest ; ( 3 ) confidence in the administration of justice i s threatened due to lack of public information co ncerning the status and conduct of the proceedin g ; and ( 4 ) the public interest in maintaining co nfidence in the judicial office and the integrity of the administration of justice requires that some o r all aspects of such proceeding should be publicl y conducted or otherwise reported or disclosed to the public , the requirement of confidentiality m ay , to the extent determined by the Commission , be modified with respect to said proceeding ; an Cal., Mosk v. Superior d , after completion of the investigation , a public Discussing when the Commission on Ct. of Los Angeles hearing shall be held and shall be publicly condu Judicial Performance may allow Judicial proceeding, 1979 COCAP Cnty, 25 Cal. 3d 474 cted . disciplinary hearings to be public. discipline, judge ( 3 ) The misbehavior of any person in the presen Pa., Smith v. Mason, ce of the court , thereby obstructing the administr Discussing when a person may be Judicial proceeding, 1984 COCAP 328 Pa. Super. 314 ation of justice . found in criminal contempt of court. contempt After reviewing the record , we conclude that cau se for discipline has been established and a publi c censure is the appropriate discipline . In the for mal complaint you were charged with violating R ule 241 ( B ) , C.R. C.P. , and the Code of Profes sional Responsibility , DR 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) , DR 6 - 101 ( A ) ( 3 ) , and DR 7 - 101 ( A ) ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) , by reason of the followi ng acts : ( 1 ) neglecting a legal matter entrusted t o you ; ( 2 ) failing to carry out a contract of emp loyment entered into with a client for professiona l services ; ( 3 ) causing damage or prejudice to a client during the course of your professional rela Concluding public censure was the Colo., People v. tionship ; and ( 4 ) engaging in conduct that was appropriate discipline for a dilatory Judicial proceeding, 1981 COCAP Gottsegen, 623 P.2d 878 prejudicial to the administration of justice . and otherwise negligent attorney. discipline, lawyer

It was for this reason that a separate standard for misbehavior , " conduct prejudicial to the admini stration of justice by bringing the judicial office i nto disrepute , ” was deleted by the Senate Judici DDC, Hastings v. ary Committee for fear that such a general disrep Limiting a statute controlling Judicial Conf. of the ute standard directly embodied in the statute coul censurable judicial behavior to that United States, 593 F. d be used to intrude into a judge ’s personal life which would interfere with judge's Judicial proceeding, 1984 COCAP Supp. 1371 unrelated to his or her judicial conduct . duties or taint public's perception. discipline, judges

The proper administration of justice necessitates Ind., In re Colestock, the maintenance of independent professional jud Finding that a lawyer violated rules of Judicial proceeding, 1984 COCAP 461 N.E.2d 137 gment by a lawyer on behalf of his client . professional responsibility. discipline, lawyer

Wash., In re Further , the holding of a private hearing would h Disciplinary Proceeding ave damaged the public 's confidence in the admi against Mark S. Demig, nistration of justice and led to suspicions as to th Finding appropriate the procedure of a 1987 COCAP 108 Wash. 2d 82 e objectiveness of the hearing . judicial conduct proceeding below. Judicial proceeding The Independent Counsel relies on a single quota tion plucked from Blackmer v. United States , 28 4 U.S. 421 , 438 , 52 S.Ct . 252 , 255 , 76 L.Ed . 375 ( 1932 ) : " one of the duties which the citize n owes to his government is to support the admin istration of justice by attending its courts and givi Rejecting government's request to DDC, In re Sealed Case, ng his testimony whenever he is properly summo subpoena potentially self- Judicial proceeding, 1987 COCAP 832 F.2d 1268 ned . " incriminating documents. court procedure

In order to promote the expeditious administratio N.C., LEA COMPANY n of justice , we elect to exercise the rarely used v. NORTH CAROLINA general supervisory powers given this Court in ar BOARD OF ticle IV , section 12 ( 1 ) of the Constitution of N Judicial proceeding, TRANSPORTATION, orth Carolina and choose to address two collatera powers & 1986 COCAP 317 N.C. 254 l issues not raised by the parties . Guiding determination of damages. prerogatives On the other hand , there are other dining occasio ns that support activities germane to the State Ba r ’s performance of its duties in the improvement Mich., Falk v. State Bar of the administration of justice and the advance Assessing propriety of judges at Bar association 1981 COCAP of Mich., 411 Mich. 63 ment of jurisprudence . various social functions. regulating judges The concluding clause of the statute penalizes an yone who “ corruptly ... endeavors to influence , Outlining provisions of s. 1503 against E.D. Va., U.S. v. Caron, obstruct , or impede , the due administration of j improper influence of witness, juror, Judicial proceeding, 1982 COCAP 551 F. Supp. 662 ustice . ” or court official. perjury The administration of justice would be greatly bu rdened if required to accommodate separate trials in all cases where multiple parties have participa ted in a criminal offense and where one or more have confessed to its commission . " State v. Fer guson , 3 Wn . App . 898 , 906 , 479 P. 2d 114 ( Wash., State v. Samsel, 1970 ) , review denied , 78 Wn .2 d 996 ( 1971 ) Finding no error in refusal to grant Judicial proceeding, 1985 COCAP 39 Wash. App. 564 . motion to sever. court procedure The committee found that respondent had violate Finding violation of professional rules Pa., In Re Anonymous d D.R. 1 - requiring lawful behavior where No. 60 D.B. 83, 33 Pa. 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) in that his conduct was prejudicia lawyer consumed drugs and consorted Judicial proceeding, 1984 COCAP D. & C.3d 187 l to the administration of justice . with drug dealers. discipline, lawyer

The Commission , based upon its findings of con duct prejudicial to the administration of justice w hich brings the judicial office into disrepute , as Miss., In re Inquiry opposed to willful misconduct in office , has dete Concerning County rmined that a public reprimand is an appropriate Court Judge Kelly sanction finding that this case is somewhat simila Describing appropriate sanctions for COLLINS, 524 So. 2d r to the trilogy of check collecting cases filed by t personal use of labor of county Judicial proceeding, 1987 COCAP 553 he Commission . prisoners. discipline, judge In a mandamus action in which petitioner seeks t o have discovery orders involving a claim of priv ilege reviewed , we have held that review is appr opriate when : “ ‘ ( 1 ) disclosure of the allegedly privileged or confidential information renders i mpossible any meaningful appellate review of th e claim of privilege or confidentiality ; and ( 2 ) t he disclosure involves questions of substantial im portance to the administration of justice . ’ ” Unit ed States v. West , 672 F. 2d 796 , 798 - 99 ( 10th Cir .1982 ) ( quoting United States v. Winner , 641 F. 2d 825 , 830 ( 10th Cir .1981 ) ( quoting Iowa Beef Processors , Inc. v. Bagley , 6 C.A. 10, 01 F. 2d 949 ( 8th Cir .1979 ) ) , cert . denied , 4 Barclaysamerican Corp. 57 U.S. 1133 , 102 S.Ct . 2959 , 73 L.Ed .2 d 13 Judicial proceeding, 1984 COCAP v. Kane, 746 F.2d 653 50 ( 1982 ) . Refusing to breach judicial privilege. discipline, judge It is very obvious that the public policy which re nders the protection of witnesses necessary for th e administration of justice must as a necessary co nsequence involve that which is a step towards a Upholding absolute privilege for nd is part of the administration of justice — nam defamatory statements in documents Md., Adams v. Peck, ely , the preliminary examination of witnesses to prepared for use inlitigation but not Judical proceeding, 1980 COCAP 288 Md. 1 fínd out what they can prove . filed. procedure In our judgment the court ’s order requiring appe llant to wear a tie in court was a simple requirem Ak., Friedman v. ent bearing a reasonable relationship to the prope Judicial proceeding, District Court, 611 P.2d r administration of justice in that court . ” Id . at Upholding court's requirements of powers & 1980 COCAP 77 23 . minimum standards of dress. prerogatives “ This was in disobedience to a lawful order , or a command , if you want to call it that , of the co Reviewing proceedings below to find Ga., Dowdy v. Palmour, urt , which tended to obstruct the administration in contempt attornets who did not Judicial proceeding, 1982 COCAP 164 Ga. App. 804 of justice . stand to reply to the court. discipline, lawyer

Finally , the Magistrate concluded that no conditi on or combination of conditions would assure the D. P.R., U.S. v. safety of the Government ’s witnesses and the c Judicial proceeding, Acevedo-Ramos, 600 F. ommunity or insure the proper administration of Reviewing magistrate judge's pretrial powers & 1984 COCAP Supp. 501 justice in defendant ’s case . detention of witness. prerogatives CITY CONSUMER SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. David G. Judicial proceeding, HORNE, et al., Disqualification will not hinder the efficient adm Consdering motion to disqualify powers & 1983 COCAP Defendants inistration of justice counsel. prerogatives

The term " serious crime " shall include any felo ny and any lesser crime a necessary element of w hich , as determined by the statutory or common law definition of such crime , involves improper conduct as an attorney , interference with the ad ministration of justice , false swearing , misrepre sentation , fraud , willful failure to file income ta x returns , deceit , bribery , extortion , misapprop D.C., In re James D. riation , theft , or an attempt or a conspiracy or so Considering whether conduct of Hutchinson, 518 A.2d licitation of another to commit a " serious crime . attorney was "serious crime" requiring Judicial proceeding, 1986 COCAP 995 ” disbarment. discipline, lawyer Fla., Petition of SUPREME COURT SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES TO AMEND Describing goals of program providing INTEGRATION RULE, for deposition of clients' common trust ARTICLE II AND The goals of the Court ’s program are to improve funds in savings accounts, interest ARTICLE XI, 373 So. the administration of justice in this state and to e payable to programs designed to Judicial proceeding, 1979 COCAP 2d 1 xpand the delivery of legal services to the poor . benefit the public. policy

Although the court concluded that “ there was an ample independent source of identification ” , it a dded that it was so tainted by duress and imprope D.C., U.S. v. Walton, r suggestiveness “ that it would . be an aberration Describing reasoning to forbid in- Judical proceeding, 1979 COCAP 411 A.2d 333 in the administration of justice ” to permit it . court identification. procedure Courts exist for the administration of justice , an d in the conduct of trials in general much must , of necessity , and in the very nature of things , be left to the discretion of the court charged with th e duty of administering justice , and having the i Ala., Hall v. State, 377 nherent power to regulate such matters in the tria Explaining finding of no abuse of Judical proceeding, 1979 COCAP So. 2d 1123 l forum . discretion below. procedure Therefore , we sustain charge II , but only insofa r as it charges respondent with engaging in " con duct that is prejudicial to the administration of ju stice ” ( DR 1 - 102 [ A ] [ 5 ] ) and " [ c ] onceal [ ing ] or kno wingly fail [ ing ] to disclose that which he is req Upholding sanction for failure to N.Y., In re Devine, 128 uired by law to reveal ” ( DR 7 - comply with subpoena of documents Judicial proceeding, 1987 COCAP A.D.2d 1024 102 [ A ] [ 3 ] ) . as predicate to censure. discipline, lawyer The hearing committee found that while respond ent had not violated Disciplinary Rule 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 3 ) , which provides for illegal condu ct involving moral turpitude , it did find that resp ondent violated Rules of Professional Responsibi lity D.R. 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 4 ) , in that he had engaged in conduc t amounting to a form of misrepresentation , D.R .1- 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) , in that he had engaged in conduc t that is prejudicial to the administration of justic e , and D.R. 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 6 ) , in that he had engaged in conduc Characterizing behavior of lawyer Pa., In re Anonymous t that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice l who misrepresented facts in Judicial proceeding, 1978 COCAP No. 25 D.B. 77 aw : transaction. discipline, lawyer " This is a serious crime because the true admini C.A. 2, U.S. v. Assi, stration of justice is the cornerstone of all our lib 1984 COCAP 748 F.2d 62 erties . Judge providing jury instructions Judicial proceeding N.Y., People v. Discussing incentives back of Grissom, 128 Misc. 2d Requiring the party who wants the minutes to ord production requirements as between Judicial proceeding, 1985 COCAP 246 er them promotes the administration of justice . parties. procedure

Bredemann v. Bredemann , 253 Minn. 21 , 24 - 5 , 91 N.W. 2d 84 , 87 ( 1958 ) stated the rule th at dissolution judgments may be set aside “ unde r such circumstances as amount to a fraud on the court and the administration of justice . * * * To Minn., In re Marriage of be fraud on the court and the administration of ju Adams, 393 N.W.2d stice , there must be found to be fraud on [ the wi Judicial proceeding, 1986 COCAP 508 fe ] . " Explaining controlling precedent. procedure

We are also conscious of undue delays in the ad ministration of justice produced by unnecessary t rials , and also of the crushing financial burdens Judicial proceeding, C.A. 3, U.S. v. placed on the taxpayers who ultimately pay the e Rejecting judicial economy arguments powers & 1978 COCAP Moskow, 588 F.2d 882 xpenses of federal criminal litigation . against allowing conditional pleas. prerogatives The obstruction of justice predicate contained in paragraph 5 provides : It was part of the pattern o f racketeering activity that in or about September , 1981 , in the Eastern District of New York and elsewhere , that the defendants , Joseph Massino , a / k / a “ Joseph Messina , ” a / k / a “ Joseph Massina , ” a / k / a “ Joey , ” and Salvatore Vital e , a / k / a “ Sally , ” unlawfully , wilfully and kn owingly would and did corruptly endeavor to infl uence , obstruct and impede the due administrati on of justice in that the defendants would and did corruptly endeavor to counsel another person to avoid service of a grand jury subpoena , in violati S.D.N.Y., U.S. v. on of Title 18 , United States Code , Section 150 Judicial proceeding, 1986 COCAP Vitale, 635 F. Supp. 194 3 . Recalling the indictment. procedure The defendant argued that he could not be guilty Rejecting argument that grand jury E.D. Pa., U.S. v. of the offense because there was no judicial proc must have heard testimony or decided Simmons, 444 F. Supp. eeding pending which could be equated to an “ a to issue subpoean before it could be 1978 COCAP 500 dministration of justice . ” "obstructed." Grand Jury The complaint alleged that his described conduct violated DR 6 - 101 ( A ) ( l ) and ( 3 ) , which provide that a la wyer shall not handle a legal matter when he kno ws , or should know , that he is not competent to do so , and that he shall not neglect a legal matter Ore., In re Complaint as entrusted to him . Violation of DR 1 - to the Conduct of 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) was also charged . That rule forbi Assessing discipline of lawyer whose RICHARD F. CRIST, ds a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudici inexperience made him incompetent 1984 COCAP Accused, 683 P.2d 85 al to the administration of justice . to handle a probate. Discipline, Lawyer

As the Supreme Court noted in Northern Pipelin e Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. , s upra , 458 U.S. 50 at 64 , n. 15 , 102 S.Ct . 2858 Bankr. N.D. Ga., In re at 2867 , n. 15 , 73 L.Ed .2 d 598 at 610 , n. 15 : Seven Springs “ The Framers chose to leave to Congress the pre Explaining why courts cannot arrogate Judicial proceeding, Apartments, Phase II, cise role to be played by the lower federal courts powers not given to them by powers & 1983 COCAP 33 B.R. 458 in the administration of justice . ” Congress. prerogatives The accused ’s conduct with respect to his intera Ore., In re: Complaint ction with Calvin and with Wade was boorish in as to the Conduct of the extreme , but the issue is whether that conduc WILLIAM C. t was “ prejudicial to the administration of justice Finding that badgering of clerks was ROCHAT, Accused, ” or “ adversely reflects on his fitness to practice prejudicial to the administration of 1983 COCAP 295 Or. 533 law ” or both . justice. Discipline, Lawyer Certainly this court recognizes the importance of the orderly and efficient administration of justice but acknowledges the court ’s primary responsib ility of assuring individuals their rights to a prope E.D. Va., U.S. v. Allen, rly selected jury , based upon the Batson standar Qualifiying criticisms of imprecion of Judicial proceeding, 1987 COCAP 666 F. Supp. 847 ds . guidance to lower courts. procedure

Mass., Michael J. Foley Although the single justice was not in error , it is vs. Lowell Division of appropriate that we consider the matter under our the District Court broader inherent common law and constitutional Department, 398 Mass. powers to supervise the administration of justice Taking cognizance of a justice's 1986 COCAP 800 . conduct. Discipline, judge

But , while the mediation of courts is based upon the principle of judicial impartiality , disintereste dness , and fairness pervading the whole system of judicature , so that courts may as near as possi ble be above suspicion , there is , on the other sid e , an important issue at stake : that is , that cause s may not be unfairly prejudiced , unduly delayed , or discontent created through unfounded charg es of prejudice or unfairness made against the ju Pa., Commonwealth v. dge in the trial of a cause . It is of great importan Cherpes, 360 Pa. Super. ce to the administration of justice that such shoul Outlining the duties and discretion of 1987 COCAP 246 d not occur . a judge to vet his own imparitality. Discipline, judge None of these cases contains any reasoned analys is explaining why the “ administration of justice ” language should include bar proceedings . Upo n reflection , however , we conclude that it does . Ore., In re Complaint as Bar disciplinary proceedings , although sui gene Asserting that bar proceedings are to the Conduct of ris in nature , strongly resemble judicial proceedi "adminsitration of justice" for FERRIS F. BOOTHE, ngs in that they primarily involve factual adjudic purposes of rules of professional 1987 COCAP Accused, 740 P.2d 785 ations . conduct. Discipline, lawyer

C.A. 6, DETROIT POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. see also President ’s Commission on Law Enforc Referencing Coleman A. YOUNG, ement and the Administration of Justice , Task F President's Mayor of the City of orce Report : The Police 169 , 174 ( 1967 ) ( citi Commission on Law Detroit, et al., ng sur veys which found racially exclusionary hir Adducing evidence and citations that Enforcement and the Defendants-Appellants, ing practices and racially discriminatory job assig hiring program did not violate Title Administration of 1979 COCAP 608 F.2d 671 nments in Detroit Police Department ) . VII. Justice Not only did Respondent engage in conduct preju dicial to the administration of justice in ignoring the various inquiries sent to him by Bar Counsel in the Jones Conservatorship case , but he made D.C., In re Melvin J. arguments and gave testimony at the hearing in t WASHINGTON, 489 his case that the Hearing Committee charitably c Characterizing conduct that resulted in 1985 COCAP A.2d 452 haracterized as “ frivolous . ” three months' suspension. Discipline, Lawyer This is a distinction well recognized in Common wealth v. Shawell , supra. , wherein the Supreme Court said : “ The nature and character [ of the d uty ] and the practice under the common law and related statutes must control the interpretation of the term ‘ court . ’ Is the duty of such nature as t o require joint consideration by all the members of the court ? . . . The appointment and removal of public official s.. .has far reaching consequences and should be ex ercised by all the available judges of the tribunal assembled . . . ( but ) there are many things in connection with Pa., Hamill Estate, 3 Pa. the general administration of justice ( that may b Judicial powers & ***1977 COCAP D. & C.3d 100 e done by fewer members ) . ” Elaborating on the court's functions. prerogatives

As pointed out in United States v. Tateo , supra , 377 U.S. at 466 , the rule of United States v. Ball is also grounded upon fairness in the administrat Md., Sweetwine v. ion of justice , considering the interests of the pu Discussing the appropriate scope of Judicial proceeding, 1980 COCAP State, 288 Md. 199 blic as well as those of the defendant . grant of retrial. procedure Asserting liability under disciplinary Ore., In Re: Complaint rule for causing secreatary (also a as to the conduct of Smith , by persuading his secretary to make a fal notary) to make a false HECTOR E. SMITH, se acknowledgement , engaged in conduct that pr acknowledgement on a power of a 1981 COCAP Accused, 292 Or. 84 ejudicial to the administration of justice . attorney. Discipline, Lawyer

In re Murphy states that opinion work product “ c an be discovered only in very rare and extraordin ary circumstances . where weighty consideration D. Minn., U.S. v. s of public policy and a proper administration of Bonnell, 483 F. Supp. justice would militate against the nondiscovery o Discussing appropriate bounds of Judicial proceeding, 1979 COCAP 1070 f an attorney ’s mental impressions . ” privilege. procedure

As discussed in Section I.A , supra , by developi ng a complete and searching record , the trial cou C.A. 9, U.S. v. Kamer, rt can , and should , ensure the thor ough and eff Grounding the insufficieny of trial Judicial proceeding, 1986 COCAP 781 F.2d 1380 ective administration of justice . judge's process. procedure Respondent is further charged with violating Dis ciplinary Rules 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 1 ) , ( 4 ) , ( 5 ) and ( 6 ) , by engagin g in conduct involy - ing dishonesty , fraud , deceit or misrepresentati on and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the ad Describing basis of liability for Ind., In re McDaniel, ministration of justice which adversely reflects o knowingly false testimony to grand Perjury, Discipline, 1984 COCAP 470 N.E.2d 1327 n his fitness to practice law . jury. Lawyer Section 53a - 147 , a part of our penal code , covers the crime of bribery in broad terms and is not limited to the Conn., State v. Carr, jr., administration of justice and attempts to influen Describing basis of liability for 1977 COCAP 172 Conn. 458 ce legislation . bribing a police officer. Law enforcement

The administration of justice under our adversary system largely depends upon the public ’s ability Md., Atty Gen'l of Md. to rely on the honesty of attorneys who are place v. Waldron, 289 Md. d in a position of being called upon to conduct th Asserting and explaining judicial 1981 COCAP 683 e affairs of others both in and out of court . oversight of the bar. discipline, judges The court notes that to try both of these charges s eparately is not in the best administration of justi ce , for among other reasons — a ) the cost and ti me of two trials , and b ) inconvenience to witnes Fla., State v. Patrus, 46 ses returning for a second trial , and c ) delay in u Finding trial court exceeded discretion Judicial proceeding, 1977 COCAP Fla. Supp. 19 ltimate resolve of the accusations . in requiring separate trials. procedure

We recognize that the fair and orderly administra tion of justice requires that trial judges must have reasonable discretion in dealing with errant juror s who demonstrate their unwillingness to abide b Miss., Jones v. State, y the instructions of the court , or other unanticip Defending discretion of judges to Judicial proceeding, 1981 COCAP 398 So. 2d 1312 ated occurrences which transpire during trials . discontinue trials. procedure Finally , we do not believe that retroactive applic ation of Brown will " ' cast substantial doubt upo n the validity of numerous prior judgments , and would impose a great burden on the administrati Wash., In the Matter of on of justice by allowing many cases to be relitig the Marriage of Joyce E. ated . . Hilt, Respondent, and . " ' Milbradt , 103 Wn .2 d at 342 , quoting Ann Daniel M. Hilt, ot. , Comment Note — Prospective or Retroactiv Appellant, 41 Wash. e Operation of Overruling Decision , 10 A.L.R. 3 Deciding to allow retroactive 1985 COCAP App. 434 d 1371 , 1391 ( 1966 ) . application of new rule. Judicial proceedings The general subject is , therefore , one in which t he public [ has ] an interest , with regard to whic h legislative action , in the interest of the public i s absolutely necessary . . . . [ The use of stenographers to report judicial pro ceedings ] expedites judi cial procedure , econom izes the time of public tribunals , and so promote s the prompt administration of justice and reduce Pa., Jones v. Montefiore s the amount of public moneys in that behalf exp Requiring county to pay costs of Judicial proceeding, 1980 COCAP Hosp., 418 A.2d 1361 ended stenography. procedure Because the court could not sanction the method by which the jury panel was formed , it reversed the judgment below " in the exercise of our powe Quoting precedent in discussion of Colo., Fields v. People, r of supervision over the administration of justice review of lower court's practices for Judicial proceeding, 1987 COCAP 732 P.2d 1145 in the federal courts . " calling potential jurors. procedure The Bar states that acceptance of this petition wil l not adversely affect the public interest , underm Fla., Fla. Bar v. ine the purity of the courts , or hinder the admini Granting peition for leave to resign Hawkins, 467 So. 2d stration of justice or the confidence of the public where attorney repeatedly failed in his ***1985 COCAP 998 in the legal profession . duties. Discipline, Lawyer Md., ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. WILLIAM H. Quoting disciplinary rule as basis for PATTISON, JR., 292 Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the admi liability of attorney who converted 1982 COCAP Md. 599 nistration of justice . client funds to his own use. Discipline, Lawyer An attorney may also be disciplined for conduct Kan., State v. Russell, which interferes with the processes of the admini Quoting bases of liabilty for attorney's 1980 COCAP 227 Kan. 897 stration of justice statements. Discipline, Lawyer

Rule 60 ( b ) , however , does not subsume or abr D.C., Synanon ogate the court ’s “ inherent power to dismiss an Foundation, Inc. v. action when a party has willfully deceived the co Bernstein, 503 A.2d urt and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent w Assessing remedial options against 1986 COCAP 1254 ith the orderly administration of justice . ” attorney's fraud on the court. Discipline, Lawyer He voiced concern that the holding of the majorit y invites state and federal authorities to undermin e the historic independence of the press by attem pting to annex the journalistic profession as an in vestigative arm of government which will in the l Discussing Supreme Court opinions Oh., In re McAuley, 63 ong run harm rather than help the administration on the limited reporter's privilege from 1979 COCAP Ohio App. 2d 5 of justice . testifying before grand juries. Grand Jury In determining the retroactivity of constitutional r ules in criminal cases , the Supreme Court has co nsidered three criteria : “ ‘ ( a ) the purpose to be served by the new standards , ( b ) the extent of t he reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards , and ( c ) the effect on the admini stration of justice of a retroactive application of t Reciting doctrinal basis for Judicial proceeding, 1985 COCAP C.A. 7, 757 F.2d 811 he new standards . ’ retroactivity determination. procedure Neither good - faith reliance by state or federal authorities on pr ior constitutional law or accepted practice , nor s evere impact on the administration of justice has sufficed to require prospective application in thes e circumstances . ” ( Williams v United States , 4 Reciting doctrinal basis for giving N.Y., People v. Molina, 01 US 646 , 653 ; United States v Johnson , 457 retroactive effect to motion to Judicial proceeding, 1983 COCAP 121 Misc. 2d 483 US 537 . ) suppress evidence. evidence The speedy and efficient administration of justic E.D. Ark., Curl v. Gen. e requires , however , that ‘ [ m ] eritless claims . Tele. Co. of the .. be disposed of at the first appropriate opportuni Southwest, 669 F. Supp. ty . ’ Hungate v. United States , 626 F. 2d 60 , 62 Discussing the dismissal of a Judicial proceeding, 1987 COCAP 930 ( 8th Cir .1980 ) . complaint. procedure

He noted , for example , that “ although the rule i s thought to deter unlawful police activity in part through the nurturing of respect for Fourth Amen dment values , if applied indiscriminately it may C.A. 3, Morrison v. well have the opposite effect of generating disres Kimmelman, 752 F.2d pect for the law and administration of justice . ” I Discussing Powell, J. on the 1985 COCAP 918 d . 428 U.S. at 491 , 96 S.Ct . at 3051 . exclusionary rule. Law enforcement

The majority would do well to bear in mind the c omment of Judge Markell for this Court in the ca se of In re Meyerson , 190 Md. 671 , 678 , 59 A. 2d 489 ( 1948 ) , quoted many times since then , to the effect that “ due regard for the administrati Md., In re Application on of justice does not permit disbarment and rein of Howard C., 286 Md. statement to be made mere adjuncts to reform sc Discussing timing of admission to the 1979 COCAP 244 hools and the parole system . ” bar aafter criminal acts. Discipline, Lawyer

The following acts or omissions by an attorney , i ndividually or in concert with another person , ar e misconduct and grounds for discipline , whethe r or not occurring in the course of an attorney - Citing grounds of liability for attorney Mich., In re Grimes, client relationship : " ( 1 ) conduct prejudicial to who backdated and persuaded client to 1982 COCAP 414 Mich. 483 the proper administration of justice ; " backdated a loan agreement. Discipline, Lawyer

Steinle mistakenly believes that his duty to his cli ent extends even to commencing a frivolous and meritless action intended to harass appellees and to impede and obstruct the due administration of justice by intentionally forcing a United States Di C.A. 7, Steinle v. strict Judge to recuse himself from a pending cri 1985 COCAP Warren, 765 F.2d 95 minal case on the eve of trial . Characterizing attorney's conduct. Discipline, Lawyer Characterizing attorney's repeated Ind., In re Friedland, There are limits which have been drawn to guara violations of rules of professional 1981 COCAP 416 N.E.2d 433 ntee the effective administration of justice . conduct. Discipline, Lawyer Although a defendant ’s right to counsel must be respected , this right can not be manipulated in s uch a manner as to impede the efficient administ ration of justice . People v. Lucero , Colo. , 615 P. 2d 660 ( 1980 ) ; United States ex rel . Basker Discussing rejection of defendant's ville v. Deegan , 428 F. 2d 714 ( 2d Cir . 1970 ) , request to discharge counsel and Colo., People v. Barnes, cert . denied , 400 U.S. 928 , 91 S.Ct . 193 , 27 represent himself after jury was Judicial proceeding, 1981 COCAP 636 P.2d 1323 L.Ed .2 d 188 . empanneled. procedure However , because of the strong constitutional i mplications of the attorney - client privilege , “ it would serve the orderly ad ministration of justice and further insure the defe ndant a fair trial if the admissibility of the [ attor ney - client communications ] could be determined in Explaining use of motion to suppress La., State v. Taylor, 502 a pretrial proceeding . ” State v. Tanner , supra , to test admissibility of attorney-client Judicial proceeding, 1987 COCAP So. 2d 537 at 1174 . communications before trial. procedure

U.S. Claims, White The interests embodied in rules dealing with pret Mountain Apache Tribe rial disclosure are significant and are an essential Judicial proceeding, 1984 COCAP v. U.S., 4 Cl. Ct. 575 part of the administration of justice . Discussing sanctions. procedure

Complaint Concerning The Honorable Robert Crane WINTON, Jr., Standard of Conduct The Code of Judicial Condu Judge of District Court, ct focuses on conduct prejudicial to the administr Hennepin County, State ation of justice , which includes but is not limited Explaining significance of canons ***1984 COCAP of Minnesota to criminal conduct . within Code of Judicial Conduct. Discipline, judge

Factors to be taken into account in determining w hether a decision is to be applied prospectively or retroactively are : ( 1 ) the purpose of the new ru le , ( 2 ) the general reliance on the old rule , and Mich., Hardigree v. ( 3 ) the affect on the administration of justice . P Reciting factors for determining Green, 97 Mich. App. eople v Hampton , 384 Mich 669 , 673 - retroactive or prospective application Judicial proceeding, 1980 COCAP 62 674 ; 187 NW2d 404 ( 1971 ) . of a decision. precedent Our inspection of the District ’s Plan persuades u s that , though it burdens the Court , counsel and others involved in the administration of justice , i t does not , as a corollary , reward defendants wit C.A. 5, U.S. v. Bullock, h automatic dismissals in all cases of underachie Assessing a District Court's plan for Judicial proceeding, 1977 COCAP 551 F.2d 1377 vement . case management. procedure

N.J., Greenberg v. The recusal of all judges so affected could impos Rejecting mandatory recusal of judges Kimmelman, 99 N.J. e a substantial burden on the administration of ju whose spouses work in the kind of 1985 COCAP 552 stice , particularly in Atlantic County . business at bar. Discipline, judge

The Illinois Supreme Court “ has frequently held that differences in the size of the municipalities may raise special or unique problems in connecti Ill., Rincon v. License on with many activities which justify classificatio Appeal Comm'n of the n including * * * [ the ] administration of justice Allowing different review procedures Local City of Chicago, 62 Ill. , [ citations ] • • Du Bois v. Gibbons ( 1954 ) , 2 for license depending on the size of commissioners 1978 COCAP App. 3d 600 Ill. 2d 392 , 402 , 118 N.E. 2d 295 , 301 . the municipality. issuing licenses The only authority cited by the Willough - bys to support their argument for the requiremen t of a specific intent is a definition of contempt in an Illinois case , picked up and quoted by this co urt in In re Holbrook , 133 Me . 276 , 280 , 177 A. 418 , 420 ( 1935 ) , along with an assortment of other definitions from other jurisdictions : any act which is calculated to embarrass , hinder or o bstruct the court in the administration of justice .. .. ( Emphasis added ) We reject the Willough - bys ’ suggestions that “ is calculated ” as there u Me., State v. sed means “ is specifically intended ” ; we read “ Willoughby, 532 A.2d is calculated ” as meaning nothing more than “ h 1987 COCAP 1020 as a natural tendency . ” Upholding contempt conviction. Judicial proceeding

This contempt power may not be taken away or a Judicial proceeding, Ala., Hall v. Hall, 485 bridged , as it is essential to the due administratio powers & 1986 COCAP So. 2d 747 n of justice . Describing a court's inherent power. prerogatives The trial judge ’s knowledge of the condition of his docket , considered against the need for an or derly and prompt administration of justice , place d him in a unique position to determine whether t Allowing dismissal with prejudice La., Thomas v. State, he dismissal should be with or without prejudice considering previous continuances and Judicial proceeding, 1980 COCAP 383 So. 2d 108 . judge's docket. procedure Here , sufficient evidence was presented from w hich the trial court could conclude that the respon dents knew that the preliminarily qualified jurors were precluded from talking to anyone , includin g members of the media , about the case ; that th e respondents ’ conduct in contacting the jurors d espite this knowledge was “ volitional and comm itted when they knew their conduct was wrongful ” ; and that the respondents ’ conduct was ' cont emptuous because they “ knowingly interfered wi th the lawful Order of the court and that misbeha vior was of such a character as to obstruct the ad Judicial proceeding, Colo., In re Stone, 703 ministration of justice ” and offend the dignity of Upholding contempt finding for powers & 1985 COCAP P.2d 1319 the court . improper contact with jurors. prerogatives

His actions undertaken with such knowledge wo uld demonstrate a fundamental lack of honesty a nd truthfulness , a deep want of trustworthiness a nd fidelity to those with whom he has entered a b usiness relationship , and a chronic contempt for N.J., In re Application the administration of justice and the laws that go Characterizing lawyer's engagement in 1983 COCAP of Matthews, 94 N.J. 59 vern the affairs of individuals . criminal activity. Discipline, Lawyer

The policy underlying the statute of limitations is primarily for the protection of the defendant , an d the courts , from litigation of stale claims wher e plaintiffs have slept on their rights and evidenc e may have been lost or witnesses ’ memories fa ded . This policy is sound and necessary for the o Az., Dicenso v. Bryant rderly administration of justice . ” Brooks v. Sout Air Conditioning Corp., hern Pacific Co. , 105 Ariz. 442 , 444 , 466 P. 2d Judicial proceeding, 1982 COCAP 131 Ariz. 605 736 , 738 ( 1970 ) . Discussing doctrine. procedure . If the single justice concludes that the administr ation of justice would not be facilitated by reporti Mass., Commonwealth ng the appeal to the full bench , the Commonwea Judicial proceeding, v. Dunigan et al., 384 lth can not proceed as if no determination had be Affirming judicial prerogatives under powers & 1981 COCAP Mass. 1 en made . state law. prerogatives To the extent such a charge is valid at common la w , it is constitutionally impermissible as it disco urages defendants from exercising their rights to Considering whether a perjury C.A. 4, U.S. v. Endo, testify , without substantially benefiting the admi information is constitutionally Judicial proceeding, 1980 COCAP 635 F.2d 321 nistration of justice . permissible. procedure

The Court noted that , according to her allegation s , plaintiff was discharged in retaliation for her r efusal to commit a criminal act and that to permit N.C., Hogan et al. v, her discharge , without legal recourse , upon suc Assessing the bounds of at-will Forsyth Country Club h grounds would be offensive to the compelling p employment; plaintiff getting her day 1986 COCAP Co., 79 N.C. App. 483 ublic interest in the administration of justice . in court Judicial proceeding

In so holding , we are aware of the consideration s regarding possible prior good - faith reliance on RAJI 4.01 and the administratio Judicial proceeding, Az., State v. Garcia, 152 n of justice as the result of vacating prior convicti Discussing retroactive application of a powers & 1986 COCAP Ariz. 245 ons in cases where that instruction was given . new rule. prerogatives

We are further satisfied that Judge Blair did not e rr in concluding , based on his factual findings , t hat Santamour ’s conduct did not “ [ fall ] below an acceptable standard for fair and honorable ad Ala., Blakesley v. State, ministration of justice . ” Bruce v. State , 612 P. 1986 COCAP 715 P.2d 269 2d 1012 ( Alaska 1980 ) . Rejecting defense of entrapment. Law enforcement Va., Stockton v. The orderly administration of justice requires tha Commonwealth, 227 t tactical matters , such as continuances , be left Finding meritless dispute with court- Judicial proceeding, 1984 COCAP Va. 124 with counsel . appointed counsel. procedure Respondents assert that these requirements facilit ate the efficient administration of justice , becaus e nonresident attorneys allegedly are less compet Sup. Ct., Frazier v. ent and less available to the court than resident at Finding discriminatory bar admission Bar association rules 1987 COCAP Heebe, 96 L. Ed. 2d 557 torneys . rules not backed by evidence. regulating lawyers

Cal., Wenger v. Prejudicial conduct must be “ conduct prejudicial Comm'n on Judicial to the administration of justice that brings the ju Performance, 29 Cal. 3d dicial office into disrepute . ” ( Const. , art . VI , Assessing bases for disqualification of 1981 COCAP 615 § 18 , subd . ( c ) ; italics added . ) a judge. Discipline, judge

W.D. Mo., Williams v. The preservation of public trust both in the scrup Explaining motivations for requiring Trans World Airlines, ulous administration of justice and in the integrit disqualification of attorney likely to 1984 COCAP Inc., 588 F. Supp. 1037 y of the bar is paramount . reveal confidential information. Discipline, Lawyer The trial court ’s inherent power to protect the so und administration of justice has provided the ba Judicial proceeding, C.A. 9, Wheeler v. U.S., sis for orders issued to protect jurors after the tria Discussing a post-trial protective powers & 1981 COCAP 640 F.2d 1116 l has ended . order. prerogatives If the Government suffered any prejudice , the sp ecifics of which are still unknown to me , it was E.D. Pa., U.S. v. plainly self - Consolidated Foods inflicted . Delay in the administration of justice Chiding the government's lack of Judicial proceeding, 1978 COCAP Corp., 455 F. Supp. 142 has been the subject of much criticism . preparation. procedure

“ Administration of justice ” has been described t husly : “ The administration of justice consists in the trial of cases in the court , and their judicial determination and disposition by orderly procedu re , under rules of law , and putting of the judgm ent into effect . ” Massey v. City of Macon , 97 Ga.App . 790 , 794 , 104 S.E. 2d 518 , 521 - 522 ( 1958 ) . We do not believe that the langua ge “ a lawyer shall not : . . engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice ” is so vague and indefinite that it violates the due pr Discussing state bar rules and refusing Tex., Howell v. State, ocess and equal protection clauses of the Constit vagueness challenge in disciplinary 1977 COCAP 559 S.W.2d 432 ution of Texas . case. Discipline, Lawyer

In contrast to the problems of choice of forum , c hoice of law and conflicting rules of navigation f oreseen in those cases , we see no similar burden C.A. 1, Austin v. s on the administration of justice or on the flow o Unarco Indus., Inc., 705 f maritime commerce that will result from a deni Discussing concerns in the definition Judicial proceeding, 1983 COCAP F.2d 1 al of admiralty jurisdiction in this case . of the reach of admiralty jurisdiction. procedure “ By withholding the identity of the informer , th e government profits in that the continued value of informants placed in strategic positions is prot ected , and other persons are encouraged to coop erate in the administration of justice . ” United St Discussing the necessity of anonymity C.A. 2, In re U.S., 565 ates v. Tucker , 380 F. 2d 206 , 213 ( 2d Cir . 19 of informants to promote cooperation 1977 COCAP F.2d 19 67 ) . with law enforcement. Law enforcement Particularly in an era of excessively crowded low er court dockets , it is in the interest of the fair an Quoting Supreme Court's C.A. 9, Vauman v. U.S. d prompt administration of justice to discourage reaffirmation of review of final rather Judicial proceeding, 1977 COCAP Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650 piecemeal litigation . than "piecemeal" judgments. procedure See § 3162 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( “ the court shall consider , among others , each of the following factors : th e seriousness of the offense ; the facts and circu mstances of the case which led to the dismissal ; and the impact of a reprosecution on the administ Discussing dismiassal under the C.A. 8, U.S. v. Ray, 768 ration of this chapter and on the administration o Speedy Trial Act for delay between Judicial proceeding, 1985 COCAP F.2d 991 f justice . ” ) . filing of, and hearing on, motions. procedure The Court reflected upon the extraordinary natur e of the state ’s interest in Dostert v. Neely , supr a : “ In declining to enjoin the imposition of the d isciplinary suspension against the plaintiff , the c ourt wishes to emphasize the extraordinary state i nterest in disciplinary proceedings which affect s tate judges . Disciplinary proceedings exist to vin dicate the most fundamental of state interests , th S.D. W. Va., Dostert v. e need for a fair and impartial administration of j 1982 COCAP Neely, 537 F. Supp. 912 ustice for the benefit of all the state ’s citizens . Discussing sanctions against judges. Discipline, judge

( 5 ) Respondent ’s conduct aforesaid constitute d misconduct in office , in that said conduct was clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice within the provisions of article 6 , § 30 of the Mi Mich., In re Hotchkiss, chigan Constitution of 1963 , as amended , and Adopting a statement of reprimand 1982 COCAP 415 Mich. 1101 GCR 1963 , 932.4 , as amended . against a judge. Discipline, judge

In Stovall v. Denno , 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct . 19 67 , 18 L.Ed .2 d 1199 ( 1967 ) , a majority of th e United States Supreme Court agreed on the fact ors which should inform a decision regarding retr oactivity : “ The criteria guiding resolution of the question implicate ( a ) the purpose to be served by the new standards , ( b ) the extent of the relia nce by law enforcement authorities on the old sta ndards , and ( c ) the effect on the administration Judicial proceeding, Pa., Commonwealth v. of justice . ” ( Footnote omitted . ) Id. , at 297 , 8 Reciting standards for retroactive powers & 1980 COCAP Miller, 417 A.2d 128 7 S.Ct . at 1970 . application. prerogatives

Wash., In re Disciplinary Proceeding The Commission has held that Judge Staples ' act Against Fred R. Staples, ions nevertheless do not fit within the " administr Allowing a judge to engage in limited 1986 COCAP 105 Wash. 2d 905 ation of justice " exclusion . We disagree . law reform efforts. Judicial conduct

Factors to be considered in determining whether transfer is appropriate typically include whether t he statute of limitations has oth erwise run , the c onvenience of the parties and witnesses , and the effect on the efficient and expeditious administra tion of justice . E. g. , Sherar v. Harless , supra , Judicial proceeding, S.D.N.Y., Wingate v. 561 F. 2d at 794 ; Eccles v. United States , 396 F powers & 1980 COCAP Harris, 501 F. Supp. 58 .Supp . 792 , 796 ( D.N.D. 1975 ) . Considering transfer. prerogatives

United States ex rel . Brown v. Fogel , 395 F. 2d 291 , 293 ( 4th Cir . 1968 ) ( for breach of condit ion other than nonappearance , court may do all t Judicial proceeding, C.A. 5, U.S. v. hat is appropriate to orderly progress of trial and Collecting citations supporting history powers & 1979 COCAP Williams, 594 F.2d 86 fair administration of justice ) . of criminalization of bail-jumping. prerogatives The court may order a prepleading mental health and physical examination of a defendant and a pr epleading investigation by the Department of Pro bation to provide material that would reasonably aid in the administration of justice by facilitating the plea bargaining process . ( People v Crosby , N.Y., People v. Scala, 87 Misc 2d 1079 , 1080 [ Sup Ct , Bronx County Judicial proceeding, 1985 COCAP 128 Misc. 2d 831 1976 ] . ) Discussing pretrial abilities of court. procedure

The doctrine of equitable estoppel is premised up on principles of fair dealing and is designed to ai d the law in the administration of justice where , without its aid , injustice might result . City & C ounty of Denver v. Stackhouse , 135 Colo. 289 , Colo., Fanning v. 310 P. 2d 296 ( 1957 ) ; Corporation of Presiding Discussing doctrine estopping plaintiff Denver Urban Renewal Bishop v. Board of County Commissioners , 689 from raising issue in separate action Judicial proceeding, 1985 COCAP Auth., 709 P.2d 22 P. 2d 738 ( Colo.App .1984 ) . that could have been raised in first. procedure In scrupulously guarding this fundamental right , our Supreme Court has noted that : [ a ] jury is a n integral part of the court for the administration of justice and on elementary principles its verdict must be obedient to the court ’s charge , based s olely on legal evidence produced before it and en Judicial proceeding, N.J., Battista v. Olson, tirely free from the taint of extraneous considerat powers & 1986 COCAP 213 N.J. Super. 137 ions and influences . Discussing juries. prerogatives

Therefore , Appellee asserts that the court can im pose a default judgment by analogy to the interro gatory statute , or in the alternative it is within th e inherent power of the court “ to do all things th at are necessary for the administration of justice Okla., Amoco within the scope of its - Judicial proceeding, Production Co. v. jurisdiction . ” Layman v. State , 355 P. 2d 444 ( Assessing whether default judgment powers & 1980 COCAP Lindley, 609 P.2d 733 Okl.Cr.App .1960 ) would be appropriate. prerogatives

The interest of the public in the fair and proper a dministration of justice includes concerns that tri als be conducted in an evenhanded manner ; that the participants in the adversary process , includi ng witnesses , be protected from unfair tactics ; a nd that the courts maintain the integrity of the ju Colo., Rodriguez v. dicial system and the highest ethical standards of District Court, 719 P.2d the legal profession . James , 708 F. 2d 40 ; Garc Protecting privilege of communication 1986 COCAP 699 ia , 517 F. 2d 272 ; G. Lowenthal , supra , at 61 . of sitnesses with counsel. Procedure; policy

The hearing board concluded that the respondent ’s submission of false documents to the grievanc e committee violated C.R.C.P. 241.6 ( 7 ) and D R1- 102 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( violation of a disciplinary rule ) , DR 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 4 ) ( conduct involving dishonesty , f raud , deceit or misrepresentation ) , and DR 1 - Colo., People v. Yost, 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) ( conduct that is prejudicial to the 1986 COCAP 729 P.2d 348 administration of justice ) . Recalling findings below. Discipline, Lawyer

Alternatively , the bar asserts that it adopted the Rules under its authority to make regulations to a id in the administration of justice ( Bus . & Prof. Code , § 6031 ) and to ensure that persons admitt Recalling State Bar's justifications for Cal., People v. Perez, 24 ed to the bar have received proper training ( see allowing supervised law students to Bar association 1979 COCAP Cal. 3d 133 Bus . & Prof. Code , § 6047 ) . participate in criminal matters. adopting rules

defendants EDWARD G. PARTIN , JACK P. F. GREMILLION , JR. , HAROLD SYKES , BEN TRANTHAM and CROCKETT CARLTON , u nlawfully , willfully and knowingly did combine , conspire , confederate and agree together and wi th each other and with their co- conspirators , Claude W. Roberson , Mitchell Hu sser and other unknown parties , to commit an of fense against the United States , to - wit , Title 18 , United States Code , Section 150 3 , that is to corruptly endeavor to influ ence , ob struct and impede the due administration of justi ce in the United States District Court for the Sout hern District of Texas in that knowing that one C laude W. Roberson was a material Government Judicial proceeding, C.A. 5, U.S. v. Partin, witness at the trial of the criminal case , then pen powers & 1977 COCAP 552 F.2d 621 ding Restating the indictment. prerogatives defendants EDWARD G. PARTIN , JACK P. F. GREMILLION , JR. , HAROLD SYKES , BEN TRANTHAM and CROCKETT CARLTON , u nlawfully , willfully and knowingly did combine , conspire , confederate and agree together and wi th each other and with their co- conspirators , Claude W. Roberson , Mitchell Hu sser and other unknown parties , to commit an of fense against the United States , to - wit , Title 18 , United States Code , Section 150 3 , that is to corruptly endeavor to influ ence , ob struct and impede the due administration of justi ce in the United States District Court for the Sout hern District of Texas in that knowing that one C laude W. Roberson was a material Government Judicial proceeding, Mich., Falk v. State Bar witness at the trial of the criminal case , then pen powers & 1981 COCAP of Mich., 411 Mich. 63 ding Influencing witness prerogatives

Public confidence in the fairness of the criminal j ustice system and community participation in the administration of justice are also critical by - Mass., Commonwalth v. products of juries composed of a representative Brown, 11 Mass. App. cross section of the community . People v. Wheel Discussing the proportionality Judicial proceeding, 1981 COCAP Ct. 288 er , 22 Cal . 3d 258 , 270 - 272 ( 1978 ) . requirements for juries. procedure

This is so because the mayor had the power to is sue a warrant for the arrest of defendant to comp el his appearance at a stated time by reason of th e mayor ’s statutory powers enumerated in R. C. 1905.20 , relating to criminal matters which , int er alia , provides : “ * * * The mayor shall award Oh., Vill. Of Oakwood and issue all writs and process that are necessary v. Wuliger, 69 Ohio St. to enforce the administration of justice througho Law enforcement; 1982 COCAP 2d 453 ut the municipal corporation . * * * ” Citing ordinance. Mayoral powers

Woven throughout our disciplinary cases involvi ng attorneys is the thought that they occupy a spe cial position because they are actively involved in W. Va., Re: Bonn administering the legal system whose ultimate g 1980 COCAP Brown, 166 W. Va. 226 oal is the evenhanded administration of justice . Discussing the disciplinary system. Discipline, Lawyer

The fact that she chose instead to make her dema nds in the midst of an already unstable , difficult , and conceivably dangerous setting gives rise to a reasonable inference that her conduct was calcu Ill., People v. Siegel, 94 lated to embarrass , hinder or obstruct the court i Evaluating conduct of disruptive Judiical proceeding; 1983 COCAP Ill. 2d 167 n its administration of justice . individual disruptive incident

When a defendant , for one reason or another , re fuses the assistance of counsel , trial courts are fa ced with a difficult question : should the Court re quire “ standby ” counsel , even against the wish es of the defendant , in order to protect the defen dant ’s basic rights ? There is no right to standby counsel . Nevertheless , the appointment of stand by counsel may benefit not only the defendant bu Judicial proceeding, Del., Hicks v. State, 434 t also the Court , by insuring an orderly and fair a procedure, fairness 1981 COCAP A.2d 377 dministration of justice . Assessing doctrine. to defendant The following assertion of Judge Will is not true and to that extent creates an appearance of despe ration in attempting to establish a point : “ ‘ The Judicial Council ’s order was undeniably “ neces sary . ... for the effective and expeditious adminis tration of justice . ’ The chaos and hardship to liti gants that would have ensued at the expiration of the Marathon stay , had there been no uniform p Bankr. N.D. Ill., In re rocedure for carrying forward the business of fed Judicial proceeding, Wildman, et al., 30 B.R. eral bankruptcy jurisdiction , are universally ackn Judge's assessment of delegations to powers & 1983 COCAP 133 owledged . ” bankruptcy judges. prerogatives

( 2 ) On motion of the state , the court or a party , the court may continue the case when required i n the administration of justice and the defendant Wash., State c. Kelly, will not be substantially prejudiced in the present Ordering conditions for grants of Judicial proceeding; 1982 COCAP 32 Wash. App. 112 ation of his or her defense . continuances. procedure C.A. 10, Plastic Considering that this case is on appeal from an or Container Corp. v. der granting summary judgment , the court has , i Continental Plastics of n furtherance of the proper administration of just Oklahoma, 607 F.2d ice , decided the issue of collateral estoppel on th Judicial proceeding; 1979 COCAP 885 e merits of the case . Discussing procedure in patent cases. procedure

In Ex Parte Reynolds , supra , the progenitor of t his line of cases , the court interpreted Robinson as diminishing the importance of the “ reliance ” prong of the tripartite test of Stovall and Desist , Judicial proceeding, N.D. Tex., Bullard v. and virtually eliminating the third branch of the t powers & 1980 COCAP Estelle est ( effect on administration of justice ) . Discussing retroactivity. prerogatives

For these reasons , this Court feels that unless rel iance upon the old rule is so great that the accom panying difficulties in the retroactive administrati Judicial proceeding, E.D. Ill, Persico v. U.S. on of justice forbid ; it is important that some ave powers & 1977 COCAP DoJ, 426 F. Supp. 1013 nue of relief be made open to the petitioner . Discussing retroactivity. prerogatives

There would also seem to be little impact on - Judicial proceeding, C.A. 1, Fernandez v. the administration of justice whether or not Rick powers & 1982 COCAP Chardon, 681 F.2d 42 s is applied retroactively . Discussing retroactivity. prerogatives D. Mass., Lombard v. Eunice Kennedy This is not a case , therefore , in which the unspe Schriver Ctr. for Mental cified duration of M.G.L. c. 260 , § 7 ’s tolling p Assessing the effects of mental Judicial proceeding, Retardation, Inc., 556 F. eriod would have pernicious consequences for th incompetence on state tolling powers & 1985 COCAP Supp. 677 e administration of justice . provision. prerogatives Pa., In re Anonymous No. 65 D.B. 75, 7 Pa. D. & C.3d 519 . . . Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the admi Citing basis of liability for not 1977 COCAP BOARD nistration of justice . informing client and not filing action. Discipline, Lawyer

This court also has said that a minimal showing o n the part of defendant serves the administration of justice because it is much easier for defendant than plaintiff to determine , for example , the abs U.S. Claims, Park v. ence of defendant ’s witnesses and loss of defend Discussing showings for prejudicial Judicial proceeding; 1986 COCAP U.S., 10 Cl. Ct. 790 ant ’s documents . delay. procedure

By statute , the Supreme Court has " power and c ontrol over attorneys and counsellors - at - law and all persons practicing or assuming to pr actice law ” in this State , and the Appellate Divi sion is specifically " authorized to censure , susp end from practice or remove from office any atto rney and counsellor - atlaw admitted to practice who is guilty of profe ssional misconduct , malpractice , fraud , deceit , crime or misdemeanor , or any conduct prejudici N.Y., In re Padilla, 67 al to the administration of justice ” ( Judiciary La Reiterating court's control of conduct 1986 COCAP N.Y.2d 440 w § 90 [ 2 ] ) . of lawyers. Discipline, Lawyer As was said by this court in Southern Pacific Tra Tex., State v. Rotello, nsportation Go . v. Stoot , 530 S.W. 2d at 931 : Affirming dismissal for prejudicial Judicial proceeding; 1984 COCAP 671 S.W.2d 507 Delay haunts the administration of justice . delay. procedure

M.D. Fla., U.S. v. The court found that the district court ’s conclusi Judicial proceeding; Lehder-Rivas, 667 F. on that publicity posed a serious and imminent th Discussing restraining order on powers & 1987 COCAP Supp. 827 reat to the administration of justice was correct . attorneys regarding media contacts. prerogatives

C.A. 9, U.S. v. Tertou, Judicial proceeding; 1984 COCAP 742 F.2d 538 (footnote citing the Speedy Trial Act) procedure

Accordingly , and in furtherance of the administration of justice , we conclude that a trial Ct. Customs & Patent de novo is indicated in this case so that the Appeals, ASG Indus. et merits of the issue of the amount of the net Considering impacts of recent Judicial proceeding; 1979 COCAP al. v. U.S., 610 F.2d 770 bounty herein involved can be fully developed . statutory amendments on procedure. procedure

We are entirely convinced that the ex parte dispo sition of a criminal case out of court , or the disp osition of any case for reasons other than an hone N.C., In re Inquiry st appraisal of the facts and law as disclosed by t Concerning Judge W. he evidence and the advocacy of both parties , wi Finding a violation of ethical rules in Milton Nowell, 293 ll amount to conduct prejudicial to the administra judge's dispositoin of a case outside of Discipline, judicial; 1977 COCAP N.C. 235 tion of justice . normal procedures. procedure Black ’s Law Dictionary , Rev. 4th Ed. , informs us that such a body is ( p. 425 ) — “ A tribunal o fficially assembled under authority of law at the a Public utility commission querying Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, ppropriate , time and place , for the administratio attributes of a body that can Petition of Myers, 46 n of justice . In re Carter ’s Estate , 254 Pa. 518 , constitutionally exercise judicial 1977 COCAP Fla. Supp. 74 99 A. 58 . ” functions Broad description On this occasion , however , Zywicki informed t he police officer that a decision of the District of Columbia Superior Court had narrowed the appli cation of 40 U.S.C. § 13k to prohibit only conduc t engaged in “ with the intent to disrupt or interfe C.A.D.C., Grace v. re with or impede the administration of justice or Burger, 214 U.S. App. with the intent of influencing the administration Recounting conduct of officers at Judicial proceeding; 1981 COCAP D.C. 375 of justice . ” Supreme Court. procedure

The trial court also found , pursuant to § 220. - 15 , that appellee had the capacity to understand the proceedings against him ; his plea was knowi C.A. 2, Lockett v. ngly and voluntarily made ; and acceptance of th Montemago, 784 F.2d e plea was required in the interest of the public in Assessing court's finding that pleas Judicial proceeding; 1986 COCAP 78 the effective administration of justice . was voluntary. procedure The findings in 9 ( b ) and ( e ) , which we have N.C., In re Inquiry adopted , constitute conduct prejudicial to the ad Concernign a Judge, ministration of justice that brings the judicial offi Assessing judge's involvement with 1983 COCAP 309 N.C. 635 ce into disrepute . female probation officer. Discipline, judge

The raising of revenue and the allocation of finan cial resources among all government entities is in itially and primarily the responsibility of the legis lative branch of government , and sound public p olicy considerations demand that when the judici ary seeks to use its inherent power to overcome t his peculiar prerogative of the Legislature , it be held to a high standard and assume the burden of showing that the funds sought to be compelled a Tex., District Judges v. re essential for the holding of court , the efficient County Judge, 657 administration of justice , or the performance of Reciting standard for judicial, as Judicial proceeding; 1983 COCAP S.W.2d 908 its constitutional and statutory duties . opposed to legislative, exactions. financing

" conduct that is prejudicial to the administration N.Y., In re Newman, 64 of justice ” ( Code of Professional Responsibility Basis of liability for a lawyer's 19781 COCAP A.D.2d 145 , DR 1 - 102 , subd [ A ] , par [ 5 ] ) ; repeated violations of ethical rules. Discipline, lawyer To permit the losing party in an ongoing depende ncy custody dispute , as in the case before us , to file a later adoption proceeding before a different Arizona juvenile judge while the dependency pr oceedings are being processed by another Arizon Az., In re Appeal, 680 a juvenile judge would cause havoc to the orderly Discussing prudential concerns of lack Judicial proceeding; 1983 COCAP P.2d 163 administration of justice . of jurisdictional limits. procedure

Applying this interpretation of the 1831 Act to th e facts in Nye , the Supreme Court noted that the allegedly obstructive acts occurred more than on e hundred miles from the court in which the unde rlying action was pending , and concluded that su ch actions were not “ so near thereto as to obstru Judicial proceeding; S.D.N.Y., U.S. v. Reed, ct the administration of justice , ” and therefore c powers & 1985 COCAP 601 F. Supp. 685 ould not be punished by the offended court . Recalling criteria for "obstruction." prerogatives C.A. 11, U.S. v. 1986 COCAP Petzold, 788 F.2d 1478 (footnote citing s. 1503) Obstruction statute Unclear

Fla., State v. Patrus, 46 This discretion should be exercised in fairness to Announcing bounds for courts' Judicial proceeding; 1977 COCAP Fla. Supp. 19 all parties and the administration of justice . exercises of discretion. procedure

” Rather we think the language of these cases am ply indicates that the purpose of the requirements was to insure that dishonest , unscrupulous or co rrupt individuals would not use their knowledge W. Va., Puchinsky v. of the law to perpetrate fraud upon the unsuspect Citing, and then distinguishing, the W. Va. Bd. of Law ing and unknowledgeable public or to obstruct th motivationd of bar rules from a Examiners, 164 W. Va. e proper administration of justice for their own o lawyer's holding some or other 1980 COCAP 736 r their clients ’ benefit . political philosophy. Discipline, Lawyer

A court retains inherent power to grant relief to a party who has been denied an opportunity to def end in a divorce action under such circumstances Minn., In re Marriage of as amount to a fraud on the court and the admini Judicial proceeding; Nordmark, 388 N.W.2d stration of justice . Bredemann v. Bredemann , 2 powers & 1986 COCAP 436 53 Minn. 21 , 24 , 91 N.W. 2d 84 , 87 ( 1958 ) . Describing powers of the court. prerogatives

Typical of the reasoning of these courts is E. W. Scripps Co. v. Fulton , supra , where the public i nterest was stated as follows : “ It can never be cl W. Va., State ex rel. aimed that in a democratic society the public has Judicial The Herald Mail Co., no interest in or does not have the right to observ Discussing access of journalists to proceedings; access 1980 COCAP 165 W. Va. 103 e the administration of justice . judicial proceedings. to

In considering the serious request which was not made lightly , we are guided by the rationale of our Superior Court in Crawford ’s Estate , 307 P a. 102 , 108 ( 1931 ) , wherein the court stated : “ Pa., Kaplan v. Due consideration should be given by him [ judg Alleghany Co. Comm'rs, e ] to the fact that the administration of justice sh Assessing whether any county judge Judicial proceeding; 1986 COCAP 45 Pa. D. & C.3d 396 ould be beyond the appearance of unfairness . would be able to hear the instant case. procedure

Assessing denial of continuance when pro se party repeatedly missed court C.A. 9, U.S. v. Kelm, There is little doubt that Kelm ’s conduct hindere and imposed requirements for Judicial proceeding; 1987 COCAP 827 F.2d 1319 d the “ efficient administration of justice . appointed counsel. procedure D. Ark., Polson v. Nor does the public service or the administration Refusing absolute privilege to public Davis, 635 F. Supp. of justice require complete immunity for such an officers in the context of terminating 1986 COCAP 1130 action . employment. Judicial proceeding

Stated as basis of liabiltiy under professional conduct rules for fialures Mo., In re Clinton to advise client of adverse judgment, Adams, 737 S.W.2d ( d ) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the delay payment to government division, 1987 COCAP 714 administration of justice and acting against client's interests. Discipline, Lawyer DR 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) ( conduct prejudicial to the admin Colo., People v. istration of justice ) ; and DR 6 - Reciting basis of liability resulting in 1983 COCAP Whitcomb, 676 P.2d 11 101 ( A ) ( 3 ) ( neglect of a legal matter ) . suspension of one year and one day. Discipline, Lawyer

It is in the best interests of the estate , the debtor and the creditors to dismiss this Chapter 11 case to effectuate a substantial savings in litigation an d administrative expenses which would otherwis e be incurred if it were to remain pending and to Bankr. W.D. Ark., In re further serve the ends of the fair efficient and eff Restating rationale for dismissal Judicial proceeding; 1986 COCAP Westfall, 73 B.R. 186 ective administration of justice . offered below. procedure C.A. 8, Banks v. Heun- To take such action could , in our judgment , esta Norwood, 566 F.2d blish a precedent which would not advance the pr Characterizing the result of granting Judicial proceeding; 1977 COCAP 1073 oper administration of justice . relief sought for first time on appeal. procedure

In both instances , the trial judge ’s knowledge o f “ the condition of his docket , fairness not only to both parties but also to other litigants in his co urt , and the need for an orderly and prompt admi nistration of justice ” provides him with superior La., Martin v. South ability to determine the terms of the dismissal . Coast Corp., 356 So. 2d Malter v. McKinney , 310 So .2 d 696 , 698 ( La. Describing judges' latitiude in Judicial proceeding; 1977 COCAP 500 App . 1st Cir . 1975 ) . dismissals. procedure Section 1503 also contains a broad omnibus clau se which makes illegal any actions whereby a per son who “ corruptly or by threats or force , or by any threatening letter or communication , influen ces , obstructs or impedes , or endeavors to influ ence , obstruct , or impede , the due administrati on of justice , shall be fined not more than $ 5,00 C.A. 6, U.S. v. 0 or imprisoned not more than five years , or bot (Cited in footnote of appeal reversing Judicial proceeding; 1985 COCAP Schneider, 771 F.2d 149 h . and granting new trial.) procedure N.D. Ind., Naked City, Prosecutor Ryan corruptly obstructed and impede Inc. v. Aregood, 667 F. d the due administration of justice in violation of (Appendix stating cause of action 1987 COCAP Supp. 1246 18 USC 1503 . from complaint.) Lawyer misconduct

Concomitantly , to promote and maintain the effi cient administration of justice and the enforceabil Pa., Pa. Labor Relations ity of their employees ’ contracts , the judges of t Bd. v. Am. Federation he courts of common pleas must have input throu of State…, 526 A.2d gh the county commissioners . Id. , 507 Pa. at 27 Judges must have collective barganing 1987 COCAP 769 9 , 489 A. 2d at 1329 - 1330 . input from county commissioners. Judicial conduct

It comprehends any act which is calculated to or t ends to embarrass , hinder , impede , frustrate , o r obstruct the court in the administration of justic e , or which is calculated to or has the effect of le ssening its authority or its dignity ; or which inter feres with or prejudices parties during the course of litigation , or which tends otherwise to bring t Judicial proceeding; N.J., State v. Vasky, he authority or administration of the law into disr powers & 1985 COCAP 203 N.J. Super. 91 epute or disregard . Finding of contempt prerogatives

In determining whether to give a decision prospe ctive or retrospective application , the purpose of Az., In re Appeal in the decision , reliance on a prior rule of law , and Appeal from court order granting Pima Cnty, 118 Ariz. the possible effect upon the administration of jus adoption and denying habeas as to two 1977 COCAP 127 tice are factors which must be considered . children. Law enforcement

That statute provides that a federal court has the power to punish by fine or imprisonment such co C.A. 3, Commonwealth ntempt of its authority as “ [ misbehavior of any Judicial proceeding; v. Local Union 542, 552 person in its presence or so near thereto as to obs Underlying contempt order (on powers & 1977 COCAP F.2d 498 truct the administration of justice . ” appeal). prerogatives This right may not be employed to thwart the ad Motion for continuance to employ Ill., Peoplle v. Elder, 73 ministration of justice or to delay prosecution ind different attorney in case below Judicial proceeding; 1979 COCAP Ill. App. 3d 192 efinitely . implicating right to counsel. procedure Finally , it does not serve the interests of the adm inistration of justice to deny the making of a moti on to dismiss when , as here , the affidavit in sup N.Y., Lipman v. port of the motion to dismiss goes beyond mere c Salsberg, 107 Misc. 2d onclusionary allegations of lack of proper service Judicial proceeding; 1980 COCAP 276 . Review of denial of motion to dismiss. procedure

In the instant case , the record fails to disclose th Judicial proceeding; Oh., State v. Conliff, 61 at the statement constituted “ an imminent threat Underlying contempt finding (on powers & 1978 COCAP Ohio App. 2d 185 to the administration of justice . ” appeal). prerogatives In addition , it was found that the respondent ’s conduct was prejudicial to the administration of j ustice and reflects his unfitness to practice law a Colo., People v. nd was therefore in violation of DR1 — 102 ( A Grievance Committee's evalution of 1982 COCAP Kenelly, 648 P.2d 1065 ) ( 5 ) and ( 6 ) . attorney's conduct. Discipline, Lawyer The trial court , citing no common law authoritie s , briefly adverted to the statute , but spoke main C.A. 1, Del Rio v. ly of the duty of compensation carriers in particul Northern Blower Co., ar , and the orderly process and administration of Lower court's assessment of 1978 COCAP 574 F.2d 23 justice in general . workmen's compensation scheme. Unclear First , a criminal contempt is classically defined a s an act which is calculated to embarrass , hinder Judicial proceeding; , or obstruct a court in the administration of justi powers & Fla., Dudley v. State, ce , or which is calculated to lessen its authority Underlying contempt order (on prerogatives; 1987 COCAP 511 So. 2d 1052 or dignity . appeal). contempt

By reason of the foregoing , respondent has negle cted a legal matter entrusted to him in violation o f The Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsi bility , Disciplinary Rule 6 - 101 ( A ) ( 3 ) ; engaged in conduct prejudicial t o the administration of justice in violation of Dis ciplinary Rule 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) ; and engaged in conduct that adv Fla., Bar v. Hoffer, 412 ersely reflects on his fitness to practice law in vio Bar official's evaluation of attorney's 1982 COCAP So. 2d 858 lation of Disciplinary Rule 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 6 ) . conduct (on reivew) Discipline, Lawyer

By resisting arrest , Williams threatened that tim e- tested yet fragile social balance whereby our elec ted representatives provide laws for the good of s ociety , and public officers to execute and enforc e them , and under which respect and obedience Pa., Commonwealth v. shown to officers discharging their lawful duties Williams, 344 Pa. are as essential to the orderly administration of ju Evaluation of conduct (resisting 1985 COCAP Super. 108 stice as the laws themselves . arrest). Law enforcement

Mich., Falk v. State Bar In an integrated bar the compelling state interest i 1981 COCAP of Mich., 411 Mich. 63 s the administration of justice . Court's assessment of policy aims. Bar generally

The appellant was held in contempt of court and sentenced to five and one - half months imprisonment under Subsection 3 o f the Penal Contempt Statute which provides : Th e power of the several courts of this Commonwe alth to issue attachments and to inflict summary punishments for contempts of court shall be restr Judicial proceeding; icted to the following cases : ( 3 ) The misbehavi powers & Pa., Commonwealth v. or of any person in the presence of the court , the Reciting statute in appeal from prerogatives; 1981 COCAP Reid, 494 Pa. 201 reby obstructing the administration of justice . criminal contempt. contempt Conduct which falls short of reaffirming one ’s fi tness for the high responsibilities of judicial offic e constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administr Ne., In re Complaint, ation of justice that brings the judicial office into Basis of liability in charges against 1984 COCAP 351 N.W.2d 693 disrepute . judge. Discipline, judge A witness violates no duty to claim it , but one w ho bribes , coerces , forces or threatens a witness to claim it , or advises with corrupt motive the w Judicial proceeding; itness to take it , can and does himself obstruct or Citing upholding of conviction under powers & C.A. 4, U.S. v. Baker, influence the due administration of justice . 329 s. 1503, for inducing witness to use prerogatives; 1979 COCAP 611 F.2d 964 F. 2d at 443 . Amend. V privilege. Tampering

Accordingly , we conclude that the evidence esta Judicial proceeding; blished beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant Affirming conviction either for powers & Ill., People v. Page, 73 wilfully and knowingly interfered with the admi misleading court or causing delat, in prerogatives; 1979 COCAP Ill. App. 3d 796 nistration of justice . either case giving rise to liabiltiy. Tampering Principles of finality , certainty , and the proper a dministration of justice suggest that a decision on ce rendered should stand unless some compelling Explaining doctrine back of question S.C., Beall v. Doe, 281 countervailing consideration necessitates relitiga whether a party is precluded from Judicial proceeding; 1984 COCAP S.C. 363 tion . relitigating an issue with a nonparty. procedure

The Florida Bar in response submits that to grant the petition would not adversely affect the purity of the court system , hinder the administration of Fla., Bar v. Ward, 366 justice , or adversely affect the confidence of the 1978 COCAP So. 2d 405 public in the legal profession . Petition to resign from bar. Discipline, lawyer This court imposed a thirty - day suspension , even though we concluded that the attorney ’s conduct had perpetrated a fraud o D.C., In re Hutchison, n the judicial system and compromised the admi Describing previous sanction on 1987 COCAP 534 A.2d 919 nistration of justice . lawyer. Discipline, lawyer The administrative office of the courts was give n authority to “ serve as an agency to apply for an d receive grants or other assistance and to coordi C.A. 5, Stegmaier v. nate or conduct studies and projects in connectio Trammell, 597 F.2d n with the improvement of the administration of j 1979 COCAP 1027 ustice . Describing the duty of court officers. Judiciary generally

State v. Gregory , 66 N.J. 510 , 519 ( 1975 ) ( pr ohibiting multiple prosecution for acts arising out of same arrest under court ’s supervisory power N.J., State v. Ramseur, to ensure fairness in the administration of justice Judicial proceeding; 1987 COCAP 106 N.J. 123 , although rejecting constitutional attack ) ; Outlining court's doctrine. procedure So , it is clear beyond any argument that the Res pondent is guilty of Disciplinary Rule 1 - 102 “ Misconduct . ( A ) A lawyer shall not : ( 1 ) Violate a Disciplinary Rule ; ( 5 ) Engage in co Md., Attorney nduct that is prejudicial to the administration of j Grievance Comm'n of ustice ; and ( 6 ) Engage in any other conduct tha Md. v. Singleton, 532 t adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law . Upholding sanction of attorney in bar 1987 COCAP A.2d 157 ” proceeding. Discipline, lawyer

While we are sensitive to the fact that the efficie nt administration of justice can not be subject to t he whims and inordinate delays of litigants , and are not convinced that the failure in this case of t he plaintiff ’s new attorney to be prepared for tria l could not have been avoided , there is nothing i N.Y., Stock v. Stock, n this record to indicate bad faith on the part of t Judicial proceeding; 1987 COCAP 127 A.D.2d 829 he plaintiff in seeking an adjournment . Reversing dismissal. procedure

Since defendant Donn persisted in his contempti ble conduct despite the warnings of the Court , a nd so misbehaved that in the presence of the Cou rt he , Donn , outrageously obstructed the admini stration of justice , the Court finds said Donn in c ontempt of Court and he is ordered to be sentenc ed to a term of six months , all as appears conclu Judicial proceeding; sively in the transcript of Evidentiary Hearing , et powers & C.D. Cal., U.S. v. Donn, al. , January 25 , 1982 , which is hereby incorpo prerogatives; 1982 COCAP 584 F. Supp. 525 rated herein and made part hereof . Contempt finding. Contempt This court imposed a thirty - day suspension , even though we concluded that the attorney ’s conduct had perpetrated a fraud o D.C., In re Hutchison, n the judicial system and compromised the admi 1986 COCAP 518 A.2d 995 nistration of justice . Recalling past sanction. Discipline, lawyer

Respondent ’s discussion of murdering another p erson , raising a false claim of physical inability t o stand trial , cocaine selling , and jumping bail c onstituted unethical conduct prejudicial to the ad ministration of justice , in violation of DR 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) and adversely reflecting on his fit N.J., In re Mintz, 101 ness to practice law , in violation of DR 1 - 1986 COCAP N.J. 527 102 ( A ) ( 6 ) Disciplinary proceeding. Discipline, lawyer London has not offered any reason why a fraudul ent judgment given by a lawyer to his client does not constitute an endeavor to impede the due ad Judicial proceeding; ministration of justice other than the fact that the powers & C.A. 11, U.S. v. obstruction occurred after the resolution of the la prerogatives; 1983 COCAP London, 714 F.2d 1558 wsuit . Appeal of conviction under s. 1503. Tampering

Although clearly inappropriate and ill - advised , the question did not significantly disru Pa., In re Campolongo, pt the proceedings and thus did not constitute an 1981 COCAP 435 A.2d 581 obstruction of the administration of justice . Reveral of contempt finding. Discipline, lawyer It is precisely because “ the necessities of the ad ministration of justice require such summary dea ling . [ as ] a mode of vindicating the majesty of l aw , in its active manifestation , against obstructi on and outrage to it , ” Offutt v. United States , 3 48 U.S. 11 , 14 , 75 S.Ct . 11 , 13 , 99 L.Ed . 11 , 16 ( 1954 ) , that the summary contempt power has been upheld against due process attacks , see , e. g. , Cooke v. United States , supra , 267 U.S. at 534 , 45 S.Ct . 390 , 69 L.Ed . at 773 ; Ex part e Terry , 128 U.S. 289 , 9 S.Ct . 77 , 32 L.Ed . 4 Judicial proceeding; Pa., Commonwealth v. 05 ( 1888 ) , and we therefore decline to adopt ap powers & Stevenson, 393 A.2d pellant ’s argument that summary adjudication is Assessing arguments on appeal of prerogatives; 1978 COCAP 386 per se unconstitutional . contempt finding. Contempt

A federal district court must be able “ to protect t C.A. 1, Brockton he administration of justice by levying sanctions Savings Bank v. Peat, in response to abusive litigation practices . ” Pent Marwick, Mitchell & house International , Ltd. v. Playboy Enterprises , Judicial proceeding; 1985 COCAP Co., 771 F.2d 5 Inc. , 663 F. 2d 371 , 386 ( 2d Cir .1981 ) . Expounding doctrine. procedure

Permitting a defendant to proclaim his guilt in op Finding that guilty pleas waive all but N.H., State v. Parkhurst, en court and still avoid conviction is incompatibl jurisdictional defects; remanding Judicial proceeding; 1981 COCAP 121 N.H. 821 e with the sound administration of justice . defective guilty plea. procedure

La., State v. Williams, Permitting a defendant to proclaim his guilt in open court and still avoid conviction is incompatible with the A juror ’s failure to attend court interferes with t sound administration of he orderly administration of justice . See La.C.Cr Affirming trial judge's replacement of Judicial proceeding; 1986 COCAP justice . .P . arts. 17 , 20 , 21 . absent juror. procedure; juries They are matters involving a serious and substant ive evil — the imminent and substantial threat to Va., Landmark the orderly administration of justice posed by the Communications, Inc. v. premature disclosure of the confidential proceed Commonwealth, 217 ings of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commiss Importance of confidentiality of 1977 COCAP Va. 699 ion . review of judges. Discipline, judges Respondent did not advise [ C ] that the statute h ad expired , nor what actions could be taken to pr Pa., In re Anonymous otect his interest . It is charged that respondent ’s No. 65 D.B. 75, action involved a violation of : a. D.R. 1 - Disciplinary Board of 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) — Engage in conduct that is preju the Supreme Court of dicial to the administration of justice . b. D.R. 1 - 1977 COCAP Pennsylvania 102 ( A ) ( 6 ) Board outlining basis of liability. Discipline, lawyer E.D. Mich, Snider v. Lone Star Art Trading Although not an entirely impossible mission , suc Judicial proceeding; Co., Inc., 659 F. Supp. h a task would make the administration of justice Assessing the elaboration of RICO's application of 1987 COCAP 1249 by the Court an extremely arduous task test beyond its current scope. doctrine

Analysis Lifting the Stay for Cause : Administrat ion of Justice 11 U.S.C. § 362 ( d ) states : On re quest of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing , the court shall grant relief from the stay ... such as by terminating , annulling , modifying , or conditioning such stay — ( 1 ) for cause ... T he Court has found as sufficient cause for modify ing the stay in this case that the administration of justice and the convenience of the parties is bett er served by having the State court act as the one Bankr. E.D. Mich., In re tribunal before which all claims , counterclaims , Outlining legal standard in bankruptcy Judicial proceeding; 1982 COCAP Rutter, 25 B.R. 244, or cross-claims may be heard . court. procedure

From the foregoing findings we now find that Re spondent filed the lawsuit when he knew that his action would merely serve to harass and maliciou sly injure others , engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice , which adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law , and , by fil ing a lawsuit against a judge for conduct occurrin g in the performance of his judicial capacity , adv Ind., In re Moody, 428 anced a claim which is unwarranted under existi 1981 COCAP N.E.2d 1257 ng law . Assessing complaint against attorney. Discipline, lawyer Based on the facts outlined above , we agree with the commission ’s determination that Lucas viol ated the following provisions of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers : EC 1 - 5 ( requiring high standards of professional cond uct ) ; DR 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( violating disciplinary rule ) ; DR 1- 102 ( A ) ( 3 ) ( prohibiting conduct involving m oral turpitude ) ; DR 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 4 ) ( prohibiting dishonesty , fraud , d Ia., Committee on eceit or misrepresentation ) ; DR 1 - Professional Ethics v. 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) ( prohibiting conduct prejudicial t 1987 COCAP Lucas, 420 N.W.2d 781 o the administration of justice ) ; Commission's findings (affirmed). Discipline, lawyer

Consequently , the Council concluded that “ the uniform effective and expeditious administration of justice within this Circuit requires that the atta ched rule for the administration of the bankruptc C.A. 6, White Motor y system in this Circuit be adopted by the Distric Corp. v. Citibank, 704 t Courts .... ” Order of the Judicial Council of the Recalling Judicial Council, C.A. 6 Judicial council 1983 COCAP F.2d 254 Sixth Circuit , December 21 , 1982 . determination. determining rules

Nor is there the slightest reference in his remarks to burdens on the administration of justice , to w N.C., State v. Norville, asted court resources , or to the necessity of emp Judicial proceeding; 1987 COCAP 321 N.C. 92 anelling another jury in the event of a mistrial . Upholding instructions of trial judge. procedure Such proof might support a reasonable inference that Negroes are excluded from juries for reasons wholly unrelated to the outcome of the particular case on trial and that the peremptory system is b eing used to deny the Negro the same right and o C.A. 8, Baker v. pportunity to participate in the administration of j Expositing rationale of peremptory Judicial proceeding; 1977 COCAP Wyrick, 547 F.2d 428 ustice enjoyed by the white population . challenges. procedure Ala., Vienna v. Scott and 4 ) the effect on the administration of justice Wetzel Services, Inc., of a retroactive application of the new rule of law Judicial proceeding; 1987 COCAP 740 P.2d 447 . Discussing retroactivity standard. retroactivity Mich., St. Bar Grievance Reciting rules that govern professional Administrator v. Del ( 5 ) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the a conduct in review of determinations 1979 COCAP Rio, 407 Mich. 336 dministration of justice . thereof. Discipline, lawyer

Out of a concern for the “ practical administratio n of justice , ” we conclude , with the trial judge Oh., St. v. Fox, 68 Ohio here , that not enough evidence was introduced t Affirming jury instructions of trial Judicial proceeding; 1981 COCAP St. 2d 53 o warrant the requested instruction . judge. procedure

In the letter , the movants renew their applicatio n to withdraw the reference because this will furt her the efficient administration of justice and con tend that “ [ ijndeed , the practical consequence o f the withdrawal of the reference is that it should obviate the need for the prosecution and resolutio S.D.N.Y., In re Lion n of appeals from the bankruptcy judge 's determ Capital Group, 48 B.R. ination that the proceedings below are core proce Finding movants' motion Judicial proceeding; 1985 COCAP 329 edings .... ” unreasonable, and so denying it. procedure

In State v. DeLomba , 117 R.I. 673 , 370 A. 2d 1 273 ( 1977 ) , the Rhode Island supreme court , r elying in part on Coleman , adopted the requirem ent of either a grant of use and derivative use im munity for testimony given at a probation revocat ion hearing , or postponement of the revocation p roceeding until after the criminal trial , on the rea soning that “ the unfairness of the current practic e , even if not so severe as to rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation , is nevertheless so rea l and substantial that it calls for action by us on p ublic policy grounds and in furtherance of our res Resolving constitutional question, Ala., McCracken v. ponsibility to assure a sound and enlightened ad raised below, of coordination of Judicial proceeding; 1980 COCAP Corey, 612 P.2d 990 ministration of justice . ” Id . at 1275 . probation and criminal proceedings. procedure Inquiries would also promote the effective admin istration of justice by resolving most conflict situ Nev., Harvey v. State, ations at the earliest possible stage of the proceed Reversing and remanding for want of Judicial proceeding; 1980 COCAP 619 P.2d 1214 ings separate trials below. procedure The Respondent objects to the finding that his co nduct in refusing to produce the records was ‘ pr ejudicial to the administration of justice ’ in viola tion of DR 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) and ‘ conduct that adversely refle Del., In re Kennedy, cts on his fitness to practice law ’ in violation of Requesting review of disciplinary 1982 COCAP 442 A.2d 79 DR 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 6 ) . determination below. Discipline, lawyers We believe that the restrictive view to the contrar y , that it can not , only encourages multiplicity o Kan., Burnworth v. f litigation and waste in the administration of just Announcing rule for visitation and Judicial proceeding; 1983 COCAP Hughes, 234 Kan. 69 ice . child suppoer cases. procedure The repeated assertions by Mr. Evans , even after the dispositive approving opinion of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on the very matters whi ch Mr. Evans contends were erroneously decided by the Magistrate , and his continued and unrele nting groundless assertions that the Magistrate ac ted out of bias , rather than in compliance with w ell - established rules of law , make it apparent that Mr. Evans acted originally , and continues to act C.A. 4, In re Evans, 801 , in a way that is prejudicial to the administration Recounting reasoning of judge in 1986 COCAP F.2d 703 of justice in violation of DR 1 -- 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) disciplinary matter below. Discipline, lawyers Such conduct is prejudicial to the administration Ind., In re Carmody, of justice and reflects adversely on his fitness to 1987 COCAP 513 N.E.2d 649 practice law . Affirming disciplinary findings below. Discipline, lawyers

Furthermore , if the disqualification of one gover nment attorney could serve as the predicate for th D. Conn., U.S. v. e disqualification of the entire United States Atto Curico, 608 F. Supp. rney ’s Office , the administration of justice woul Assessing and rejecting defendants' Judicial proceeding; 1985 COCAP 1346 d be irreparably damaged . disqualification arguments. procedure

In summary , Richmond Newspapers does not se rve to support defendant ’s demand that he be aw arded a new trial because a trial judge in the inter est of the fair administration of justice may impo se reasonable limitations upon the access of the p N.C., State v. Burney, ublic and the press to a criminal trial_U.S. at_n . Rejecting reasoning back of motion Judicial proceeding; 1981 COCAP 302 N.C. 529 18,65 L. Ed .2 d at 992 , 100 S. Ct. at 2830 . for new trial. procedure The waiver provision of § 455 ( e ) , which appli es to the “ appearance ” of impropriety issues un der § 455 ( a ) but not to any actual conflict of int erest under § 455 ( b ) , reinforces our conclusion that § 455 ( a ) is concerned with perceptions rat C.A. 7, U.S. v. Murphy, her than actual defects in the administration of ju Expounding doctrine of waiver for Judicial proceeding; 1985 COCAP 768 F.2d 1518 stice . potential judicial conflicts. procedure The standard to be met before first amendment f reedoms can be abridged is that the expression b y the press must constitute “ ‘ an immediate , not Fla., Sentinel Star Co. v. merely likely , threat to the administration of just Finding trial court was perfunctory in Judicial proceeding; 1979 COCAP Booth, 372 So. 2d 100 ice . denying press access. procedure

Texas counties perform a number of functions fo r the state including the supervision of state electi ons , the collection of state property taxes , the co nstruction of state roads , bridges and ferries , an N.D. Tex., Crane v. d the administration of justice . The Texas Supre State, 534 F. Supp. me Court has emphasized that when counties act 1982 COCAP 1237 in certain capacities they are agents of the state . Law enforcement/policy. Broad description Conn., State v. Such ineffective communication can not aid the Gunning, 183 Conn. defendant , the state or the administration of justi Assessing police conduct in matter 1981 COCAP 299 ce . below. Law enforcement However , the interest of comity and the efficient administration of justice will best be served by a C.A. 1, Feinstein v. voiding the duplication of administrative arrange Mass. Gen. Hosp., 643 ments necessitated by such a requirement . 12 . S Jurisdictional concerns in handling Judicial proceeding; 1981 COCAP F.2d 880 eep . 882 , supra . 13 . medical malpractice claims. procedure So serious a matter as the appointment of a recei Cal., Cal-American ver should not be made without a full and comple Income Property Fund te hearing unless the due administration of justic VII v. Brown e clearly requires it . ” { Cohen v. Herbert ( 1960 Development Corp., 138 ) 186 Cal.App .2 d 488 , 495 [ 8 Cal.Rptr . 922 ] Clarifying procedural requirements Judicial proceeding; 1982 COCAP Cal. App. 3d 268 .) upon lower court. procedure Despite the unfairness to litigants that sometimes results , the doctrine of judicial immunity is thou ght to be in the best interests of ‘ the proper admi nistration of justice . . . [ for it allows ] a judicial officer , in exercising t he authority vested in him [ to ] be free to act up W.D. Pa., Albright v. on his own convictions , without apprehension of Albright, 463 F. Supp. personal consequences to himself . ’ Bradley v. 1979 COCAP 1220 Fisher , 13 Wall. , at 347 . Affirming judicial immunity. Judicial proceeding [ T ] he desirability of permitting a defendant ad ditional time to obtain private counsel of his choi ce must be weighed against the public need for th Pa., Commonwealth v. e efficient and effective administration of justice Announcing balancing considerations 1983 COCAP McCool, 457 A.2d 1312 . for finding counsel of one's choice. Judicial proceeding

This court reemphasized in People v. Shrum ( 1 957 ) , 12 Ill. 2d 261 , 265 , the belief that adequ ate opportunity to defend is the first essential of t rial fairness : “ Speedy administration of justice i s desirable , but the desire for speed must not be Ill., People v. Lott, 66 allowed to impinge upon the constitutional requir Finding unfair surprise on defense Judicial proceeding; 1977 COCAP Ill. 2d 290 ement of a fair opportunity to defend . ” counsel of unnoticed testimony. evidentiary issue

The exclusion of the occupational groups and of women with young children rests upon a factual f inding by this court that jury service by these gro E.D. Va., U.S. v. ups would entail undue hardship , extreme incon Computer Sci. Corp., venience or serious obstruction or delay in the fai Appeal based on defects in jury Judicial proceeding; 1981 COCAP 511 F. Supp. 1125 r and impartial administration of justice . selection. jury

This discretionary power is considered basic to t he police power function of governmental entitie s and is recognized as critical to a law enforceme nt officer ’s ability to carry out his duties . See A Referencing BA Standards for Criminal Justice , Standard 1 - President's 4.1 ( 2d ed . 1980 ) ; President ’s Commission o Commission on Law n Law Enforcement and Administration of Justic Enforcement and the Fla., Everton v. Willard, e , The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society 103 Administration of 1985 COCAP 468 So. 2d 936 - 06 ( 1967 ) . Apprising duties of police officers. Justice

t stake is the honor of the government ^ ] public confidence in the fair administration of justice , a nd the efficient administration of justice . . . Cal., People v. Sanders, . ’ [ Citations . ] ” ( People v. Mancheno , supra , 1987 COCAP 191 Cal. App. 3d 79 32 Cal .3 d at p. 866 . ) Review of broken plea agreement. Law enforcement

In Greenfield , supra , an attorney was suspended from practice for three years for professional mi sconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administr ation of justice . After a judge had denied the att orney ’s motion in a pending action , Greenfield , along with another attorney , Rothstein , wrote t wo letters to the judge accusing him without any basis in fact of misconduct in office . The attorne ys also prepared and circulated letters and affidav its concerning the alleged misconduct to the presi ding judge of the court , as well as the Governor , C.A. 4, In re Evans, 801 the District Attorney , and the Judicial Conferen Collecting precedent to uphold instant 1986 COCAP F.2d 703 ce . disciplinary finding. Discipline, lawyer In passing the Act , Congress sought to promote not only the defendant ’s right to a speedy trial , C.A. 11, U.S. v. but also the public ’s interest in the efficient adm Legislative history of Speedy Trial Judicial proceeding; 1982 COCAP Gonzalez, 671 F.2d 441 inistration of justice . Act. procedure Cal., Cooper v. Cnty of Rationale for lower court's strict Los Angeles, 69 Cal. The principle is founded upon a need for judicial compliance with instructions on Judicial proceeding; 1977 COCAP App. 3d 529 economy in the administration of justice . remand. procedure In broader terms , the statute ’s purposes go beyo nd protection of juvenile privacy to encompass th e Státe ’s interest in sound and orderly administr ation of justice ; ipost important , the statute help Mass., Globe s obtain just convictions for the types of crimes f Newspaper Co. v. rom which the victims had often suffered at the h Expounding policy back of statute Superior Court, 379 ands of the criminal justice system , while their a limiting press access to some trials Judicial proceeding; 1980 COCAP Mass. 846 sssail - ants had often gone free . while reviewing the same. media access to Cal., In re Marriage of We also note the immense burden on the adminis Lee, 124 Cal. App. 3d tration of justice in our civil courts were such reli Rejecting fully retroactive application Judicial proceeding; 1981 COCAP 371 tigation permitted . of new rule. retroactivity

“ We have given complete retroactive effect to t he new rule , regardless of good - faith reliance by law enforcement authorities or t he degree of impact on the administration of justi ce , where the ‘ major purpose in new constitutio nal doctrine is to overcome an aspect of the crimi nal trial that substantially impairs its truth - finding function and so raises serious questions about the accuracy of guilty verdicts in past trials .. . Williams v. United States , 401 U.S. 646 , 653 , Colo., People v. Hardin, 91 S.Ct . 1148 , 1152 , 28 L.Ed .2 d 388 ( 1971 Explaining doctrine concerning Judicial proceeding; 1980 COCAP 607 P.2d 1291 ) retroactive application. retroactivity The fires which it kindles must constitute an im Assessing when language rises to Ark., Clark v. State, 291 minent , not merely a likely , threat to the admini contempt in review of contempt Judicial proceeding; 1987 COCAP Ark. 405 stration of justice . conviction. Contempt

We have denied broader retroactive application o f a new rule going to defendant ’s right to a fair tr ial on grounds of reasonable reliance by law enfo Ala., Farleigh v. rcement officials on the old rule and potential im Anchorage, 728 P.2d pact on the administration of justice . See Lauder Discussing retroactive application of a Judicial proceeding; 1986 COCAP 637 dale , 548 P. 2d at 383 . new rule. retroactivity

Both the court and the prosecuting attorney may well decline to accept such plea in cases where th e due administration of justice might be imprope rly affected , for when the plea is accepted it is ac cepted with all the implications and reservations which under the law and accurate pleading apper tain to that plea . ” Winesett v. Scheldt , Comr . o Discussing doctrine back of plea of N.C., N.C. St. Bar v. f Motor Vehicles , 239 N.C. 190 , 194 - nolo contendere in remanding and 1977 COCAP Hall, 293 N.C. 539 95 , 79 S.E. 2d 501 , 504 - 505 ( 1954 ) . denying state bar summary judgment. Judicial proceeding

The basic rationale for the exceptions related to t he administration of justice is that the “ unhinder ed and untrammeled functioning of our courts is part of the very foundation of our constitutional d D.D.C., Laker Airways emocracy , ” for it is clear that when a court is pr Explaining the rationale of antisuit Ltd. V. Pan Am. World evented by outside pressure or other interference injunctions to evaluate whether Airways, Inc., 604 F. from adjudicating claims between litigants before defendants were interfering with 1984 COCAP Supp. 280 it , the rule of law is significantly impaired . administration of justice. Judicial proceeding Reciting rules in review of erroneous Criminal contempt consists of conduct that obstr dismissal for supposed lack of Colo., People v. Barron, ucts the administration of justice or tends to brin jurisdiction over matter brought by Judicial proceeding; 1984 COCAP 677 P.2d 1370 g the court into disrepute . information. contempt

For the reasons we have expressed with respect t o our conclusion that the conduct involved here d id not fall below an acceptable standard for the fa ir and honorable administration of justice , we co nclude that the conduct was not shocking and tha Ala., Guidry v. State, t judicial integrity does not require suppression o 1983 COCAP 671 P.2d 1277 f the fruits flowing from it . Explaining the exclusionary rule. Law enforcement Finally , we believe retroactive application of the Az., State c. Hooper, Chapple rule would have an undesirable effect up Judicial proceeding; 1985 COCAP 703 P.2d 482 on the administration of justice Discussing retroactivity retroactivity Congress had , however , sought to determine an appropriate fee for jukeboxes for nearly 20 years before settling on the figure in the Act . See I Co C.A.D.C., Nat'l Cable pyright Law Revision : Hearings on H.F. 2223 B Television Ass'n v. efore the Subcomm . on Courts , Civil Liberties , Referencing House Copyright Royalty and the Administration of Justice of the House Committee on Tribunal, 223 U.S. App. Comm . on the Judiciary , 94th Cong. , 1st Sess . Legislative history of copyright Admininistration of 1982 COCAP D.C. 65 380 provision. Justice

The Supreme Court ’s test for whether a “ new r ule ” in the area of criminal procedure is to be ret roactively applied calls for the consideration of th ree criteria : “ ( a ) the purpose to be served by th e new standards , ( b ) the extent of the reliance b y law enforcement authorities on the old standard s , and ( c ) the effect on the administration of jus C.A. 5, Chapman v. tice of a retroactive application of the new standa Judicial proceeding; 1977 COCAP U.S., 547 F.2d 1240 rds . ” Discussing retroactivity. retroactivity

As the Supreme Court in Bertero v. National Ge neral Corp , supra , 13 Cal .3 d at pages 50 - 51 , said : “ The malicious commencement of a civil proceeding is actionable because it harms th Cal., Camarena v. e individual against whom the claim is made , an Sequioa Ins. Co., 190 d also because it threatens the efficient administr Rejecting argument for elimination of Judicial proceeding; 1987 COCAP Cal. App. 3d 1089 ation of justice . liability for malicious prosecution. procedure These judicial officers are necessary for the prop er administration of justice , and we recommend Fla., In re Certificate, they be made permanent and funded by the state Recommending creation of new state 1985 COCAP 467 So. 2d 286 . judges. Judicary generally Society wins not only when the guilty are convict ed but when criminal trials are fair ; our system o Reversing convictions because of C.A. 4, U.S. v. f the administration of justice suffers when any a government's introduction of dubious Judicial proceeding; 1984 COCAP Carvalho, 742 F.2d 146 ccused is treated unfairly . evidence. evidentiary issue

Under this subsection , allegedly contemptuous c onduct will not justify imposition of summary cri Pa., Commonwealth v. minal contempt except where it causes an obstru Announcing rule in overturning Judicial proceeding; 1978 COCAP Garrison, 478 Pa. 356 ction of the administration of justice . contempt conviction. Contempt C.A. 4, U.S. v. This “ natural consequence , ” the government co Neiswender, 590 F.2d ntends , would have obstructed the due administr Government's contentions regarding Judicial proceeding; 1979 COCAP 1269 ation of justice . , mens rea for an obstruction charge. Tampering The physician - patient privilege thus did not bar this testimony , and the court was not required as a prerequisite t N.C., Wright v. Am. o its admission to find that disclosure of the infor Gen. Life Ins. Co., 59 mation was “ necessary to a proper administratio Rejecting challenges to introduction of Judicial proceeding; 1982 COCAP N.C. App. 591 n of justice . ” evidence. evidentiary issue The court weighed the above factors and determi ned that not only would it penalize law enforcem ent agents who had acted in accord with the pres ent state of the law , it also would amount to an o Ill., People v. Laws, 82 verwhelming burden on the administration of jus Recalling denial of retroactive effect 1980 COCAP Ill. App. 3d 417 tice . for impacts on law enforcement. Law enforcement It is also charged that , by the foregoing acts , th e Respondent violated Supreme Judicial Court R ule 3:17 ( 2 ) , in that he engaged in misconduct i n office and conduct prejudicial to the administra Mass., In re Bonin, 375 tion of justice which brings the judicial office int Recalling charge in disciplinary 1978 COCAP Mass. 680 o disrepute . hearing of judge before another court. Discipline, judge

E.D. Pa., Stevens Severance of this action into two actions and tran Yachts of Annapolic, sfer of the cases to Texas and the Virgin Islands r Inc. v. Am. Yacht espectively is not in the interest of the administra Charters, Inc., 571 F. tion of justice if a forum can be found in which a Judicial proceeding; 1983 COCAP Supp. 467 ll claims can be litigated simultaneously . Refusing motion to sever. procedure The rules of this court are designed to effectuate the orderly administration of justice and do not c Minn., Krug v. Indep. ontrol its jurisdiction , for it retains the constituti Allowing appeal where defendant Sch. Dist. No. 16, 293 onal power to hear and determine , as a matter of could have raised all issues on appeal Judicial proceeding; 1980 COCAP N.W.2d 26 discretion , any appeal in the interest of justice of first judgment. procedure

The concurrence argued that neither history , nor the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus , nor the desired prophylactic utility of the exclusionary r ule as applied in Fourth Amendment claims , nor any sound reason relevant to the administration of justice justified a federal court , on collateral r eview of a state court conviction , to review asser ted Fourth Amendment claims with the applicati on of the exclusionary rule in precisely the same C.A. 4, Doleman v. manner as it would or could have been utilized o Discussing the contrary view of the Judicial proceeding; 1978 COCAP Muncy, 579 F.2d 1258 n direct review . concurrence. procedure

Law 43 , which as we know establishes the integr ated bar of Puerto Rico , charges the Colegio wit D. P.R., Schneider v. h the duty of “ cooperating ] in the improvement Colegio De Abogados of the Administration of Justice [ and ] to render De Puerto Rico, 565 F. such reports and give such advice as the Govern Describing the nonjudicial powers of 1983 COCAP Supp. 963 ment may require of it . ” lawyers and the bar. Judicary generally Both August and Bogoff were convicted of consp Describing indictments for iring to defraud the United States of the due adm interference with blind draw system in C.A. 6, U.S. v. August, inistration of justice , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § bankruptcy court and influence clerk 1984 COCAP 745 F.2d 400 371 ( 1982 ) ( Count One ) . of court in duties. Judiciary generally

This court can not sanction the frustration of its o rder ( in this case a consent order ) by permitting a post-judgment invocation of the attorney - N.J., Fellerman v. client privilege to unduly interfere with and restr Bradley, 191 N.J. ict the proper administration of justice which it is Rejecting postjudgment assertion of Judicial proceeding; 1983 COCAP Super. 73 entrusted to foster . attorney client privilege. procedure

1 Rule 4:01 , § 12 ( 2 ) , inserted by 365 Mass. 6 96 ( 1974 ) , reads as follows : “ The term ‘ serio us crime ’ shall include ( a ) any felony , and ( b ) any lesser crime ( involving conduct of an attorn ey demonstrating unfitness to practice as a lawye r ) , a necessary element of which , as determine d by the statutory or common law definition of su ch crime , includes interference with the administ ration of justice , false swearing , misrepresentati on , fraud , wilful failure to file income tax return Citing in footnote the relevant rule s , deceit , bribery , extortion , misappropriation , supporting reversal of judgment below Mass., In re Alter, 389 theft , or an attempt or a conspiracy , or solicitati and two years' suspension, as per the 1983 COCAP Mass. 153 on of another , to commit a ‘ serious crime . ’” Board's recommendation. Discipline, lawyer

One situation where the proper administration of Wash., State v. Jones, justice requires the discharge of a jury is where t Reviewing propriety of discharge of Judicial proceeding; 1982 COCAP 97 Wash. 2d 159 hat jury is unable to agree on a verdict . jury. jury

We agree with the well - reasoned Wesley and Lester decisions holding th at it is entirely proper to charge defendants under § 1503 with interfering with the due administrati C.A. 7, U.S. v. on of justice when the conduct of the defendant r Rejecting appellants' contention that Judicial proceeding; 1985 COCAP Rovetuso, 768 F.2d 809 elates to tampering with a witness . they were improperly charged. witness tampering Courts have inherent power in the interest of the D. Nev., In re Santa orderly administration of justice and under Rule Barbara …, 94 F.R.D. 41 ( b ) , FRCP , to dismiss for disobedience of it Judicial proceeding; 1982 COCAP 105 s orders . Outlining remedial options. procedure Postponement of cases from dates scheduled for trial is one of the major factors contributing to de Md., St. v. Hicks, 285 lay in the administration of justice , civil as well Judicial proceeding; 1979 COCAP Md. 310 as criminal . Discussing legislative history delay of

Both the Master and the DRB found that respond ent violated DR 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 3 ) , which provides that a lawyer sha ll not “ [ e ] ngage in illegal conduct that adversel y reflects on his fitness to practice law ; ” DR 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 4 ) , which provided that a lawyer sh all not “ [ ejngage in conduct involving dishonest y , fraud , deceit or misrepresentation ; ” and DR 1- 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) , which provided that a lawyer sh Outlining lawyer's complicity as N.J., In re Rigolosi, 107 all not “ [ e ] ngage in conduct that is prejudicial assessed in bribe in trial and Board 1987 COCAP N.J. 192 to the administration of justice . ” review below. Discipline, lawyer The Eleventh Circuit rejected Silverman ’s argu ment stating : “ Silverman ’s proposed instructio n incorrectly explained ‘ specific intent ’ : it plac ed the burden on the government to prove that th e purpose and object of Silverman ’s endeavor w C.A. 7, U.S. v. Machi, as to influence or obstruct due administration of j Rejecting intent as mens rea in Judicial proceeding; 1987 COCAP 811 F.2d 991 ustice . obstruction. witness tampering

[ I ] t wholly fails to take into account the enorm Mo., State v. Butler, ous societal cost of excluding truth in the search Explaining the inevitable discovery Judicial proceeding; 1984 COCAP 676 S.W.2d 809 for truth in the administration of justice . doctrine. procedure Just as important as the issue of prejudice is that of the efficient administration of justice . In parti cular , we question the traditional assumption tha E.D.N.Y., U.S. v. Gallo, t denial of severance in cases such as this promot Judicial proceeding; 1987 COCAP 668 F. Supp. 736 es effi ciency . Assessing motion for severance. procedure

By reason of the foregoing Paragraph A , ( 1 ) yo u have engaged in willful misconduct relating to your official duty and persistent and public cond La., In re Whitaker, 463 uct preju dicial to the administration of justice th Violation of ethical rules in practice of 1985 COCAP So. 2d 1291 at brings the judicial office into disrepute , law by a sitting judge. Discipline, judge

We have weighed the contesting views of the par ties in this matter and conclude that the administr ation of justice will best be served in the circums tances by the court ’s exercise of its discretion to permit defendant to except to the trial judge ’s de Ct. of Claims, John M. cisión consisting of his findings , opinion , and c Judicial proceeding; 1980 COCAP Grieg, 224 Ct. Cl. 617 onclusion of law . Explaining exercise of discretion. procedure The second and third factors to be considered un der the three - prong test for retroactivity can be dealt with toge ther , since , as the Court noted in Hampton , sup ra , " the amount of past reliance will often have Mich., People v. Rice, a profound effect upon the administration of justi Judicial proceeding; 1980 COCAP 101 Mich. App. 1 ce ” . Discussing retroactivity. retroactivity

He also contends that his suspension from office would impose a burden on other judges who will be called upon to handle the caseload in the Eight Ne., In re Complaint, h Judicial District and would perhaps result in de Exceptions of judge to suspension 1984 COCAP 351 N.W.2d 693 lays in the administration of justice . from office. Discipline, judge

See Award of Attorneys ’ Fees Against the Feder Referring to House al Government : Hearings before the Subcommitt Subcommittee on C.A.D.C., Action on ee on Courts , Civil Liberties and Administration Courts, Civil Smoking and Health v. of Justice of the House Committee on the Judici Liberties and Civil Aeroanutics Bd., ary , 96th Cong. , 2d Sess . 32 ( 1980 ) ( testimo (collecting sources discussing fee Administration of 1984 COCAP 724 F.2d 211 ny of Sen. DeConcini ) awards to attorneys) Justice This general rule , rather than depending upon an R.I., JWA Realty v. City y fundamental principle of the law of evidence , i of Cranston, 399 A.2d s designed to expedite the orderly administration Discussing doctrine back of Judicial proceeding; 1979 COCAP 479 of justice in eminent domain proceedings . evidentiary rules. procedure Additionally , in view of the mass of evidence in the instant case , the efficient administration of j Mo., State v. Garrette, ustice was served by trying all counts of the ame Upholding finding that all counts were Judicial proceeding; 1985 COCAP 699 S.W.2d 468 nded information at one time part of a common scheme. procedure At least in the limited context of sentencing , the courts can recognize this inherent institutional bi Mt., State v. Fitzpatrick, as and the debilitating effect that it has on the ad Discussing means to limit vindicitive Judicial proceeding; 1980 COCAP 186 Mont. 187 ministration of justice . sentencing. procedure

Respondent was found guilty of violating DR 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) , conduct prejudicial to the admin istration of justice , although the Committee state d that it felt “ considerable empathy for the respo Az., In re Riley, 142 ndent in the circumstances in which these statem Basis of liability under conduct rules 1984 COCAP Ariz. 604 ents were made for statements to reporters. Discipline, lawyer

Here , substitution was a matter of necessity , w Oh., State v. McKinley. here the due administration of justice made it im Finding no error in service of Judicial proceeding; 1982 COCAP 7 Ohio App. 3d 255 perative , and no prejudice resulted . substitutte judge. procedure

The Supreme Court stated in Santobello v. New York , 404 U.S. 257 , 92 S.Ct . 495 , 30 L.Ed .2 d 427 ( 1971 ) , that “ the disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecutor an U.S. Army Ct. Crim. d the accused , sometimes loosely called ‘ plea b Rev., U.S. v. Lay, 10 argaining , ’ is an essential component of the ad Laying doctrinal background for Judicial proceeding; 1981 COCAP M.J. 678 ministration of justice . instant analysis of plea bargains. procedure

The Court is of the opinion that the question and opinion contained in the Amended Order of Clari fication ( a copy of which is attached hereto and i s incorporated by reference [ see preceding order ] ) involve issues of statewide application , whic Fla., St. v. Johnson, 8 h are of great public importance and will affect th Court's order setting standards for 1984 COCAP Fla. Supp. 2d 116 e uniform administration of justice in this state . roadside intoxication tests. Law enforcement.

Neither the insurance companies nor their insure ds , the employers , are officers of the legal syste m , nor , unlike lawyers , are they governed by a code of conduct casting upon them duties with re Fla., Bammac, Inc. v. spect to the administration of justice beyond that Rejecting attempts of attorneys to Judicial proceeding; 1986 COCAP Grady, 500 So. 2d 274 required of the ordinary citizen . insinuate themselves as parties. procedure N.J., Kerr Steamship And “ secondly the false swearing must have obs Co., Inc. v. John D. tructed or tended to obstruct the administration o Westhoff. Jr., 204 N.J. f justice ... It is the obstruction of judicial power Reciting legal standards in review of Judicial proceeding; 1985 COCAP Super. 300 which makes it contempt . ” contempt finding. Contempt

( a ) Whenever it appears to the superior court fo r any judicial district that the administration of ju stice requires an investigation to determine whet her or not there is probable cause to believe that a crime or crimes have been committed within th e judicial district , said court may order an inquir Conn., In re y to be made into the matter , to be conducted be Investigation …, 4 fore any judge , state referee , or any three judges Reciting statute back of investigatory 1985 COCAP Conn. App. 544 of said court designated by it abilities. Law enforcement In the case of Tafaro ’s Investment Company , In c. v. Division of Housing Improvement , et al , 2 61 La. 183 , 259 So .2 d 57 ( La. 1972 ) the Loui siana Supreme Court discussed the difference bet ween the legislative and judicial functions of pub lic bodies stating that when a judicial function is La., Corcoran v. Parish involved , an analogy to judicial process is made of Jefferson, 405 So. 2d and the procedural safeguards developed in the a Analysis of judicatory hearings at the Judicial proceeding; 1981 COCAP 667 dministration of justice must be observed . Parish level. procedure Suffice it to say that , in dealing with such a litig C.A.D.C., Urban v. ant , the court “ has an obligation to protect and p United Nations, 768 reserve the sound and orderly administration of j Outlining appropriate response to Judicial proceeding; 1985 COCAP F.2d 1497 ustice "prolific pro se litigants." procedure Retroactive application of the Fountain policy wo Mich., People v. Young, uld have an adverse effect on the administration Judicial proceeding; 1981 COCAP 410 Mich. 363 of justice . Discussing retroactivity. retroactivity

The footnote in Richmond Newspapers , Inc. v. Virginia , 448 U.S. 555 , 100 S.Ct . 2814 , 65 L. Ed .2 d 973 ( 1980 ) , to which the court made re ference in Romano , explicitly recognizes that a t rial judge may , “ in the interest of the fair admin istration of justice , impose reasonable limitation s on access to a trial ” just as " a government ma E.D.N.Y., Latzer v. y impose reasonable time , place and manner rest Abrams, 602 F. Supp. rictions upon the use of the streets in the interest Discussing limitations on press access Judicial proceeding; 1985 COCAP 1314 of such objectives as the free flow of traffic . ” to trials. media access to

The indictment charges that Gaston “ did wil - fully and knowingly corruptly endeavor to influe nce Johnny Self , a witness before the said Grand Jury , [ investigating alleged violations of the fal se claims and false statements laws ] and thereby corruptly endeavor to influence , obstruct and im pede the due administration of justice ... [ in that Gaston ] urged and advised Johnny Self to give f C.A. 5, U.S. v. Gaston, alse testimony before said Grand Jury in relation Introducing the issue before taking it 1979 COCAP 608 F.2d 607 to the aforesaid violation . ” up on appeal. Judicial proceeding The forum non conveniens doctrine is equitable i n nature ( Bell v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co . ( 1985 ) , 106 Ill. 2d 135 , 146 ; People ex rel . Atchison , Topeka & Santa Fe Ry . Co. v. Clark ( Ill., Timothy Myers v. 1957 ) , 12 Ill. 2d 515 , 520 ) and allows courts t Bridgeport Machines o strike a balance between the convenience of the Div. of Textron, Inc., litigants and the efficient administration of justic 1986 COCAP 113 Ill. 2d 112 e. Discussing state of doctrine. Judicial proceeding

After overruling the motions the court stated ( 1 ) that legislative continuances , “ in this particular case ” would violate Article I , § 13 , Texas Constitution providing that all courts shall be open , and every person for an injury done him , in his lands , goods , person or reputation , shall have remedy by due course of law , ( 2 ) that the statute providing for legislative continuances was a “ self serving law passed by the legislators for their own self preservation , ” and ( 3 ) the said Tex., Collier v. Poe, 732 motions for continuance interfere “ with the Recalling proceedings below in Judicial proceeding; 1987 COCAP S.W.2d 332 orderly administration of justice . ” mandamus action. procedure

When a patient and understanding judge gives ev ery consideration to a defendant ’s change of pos ition the day before ' trial and the defendant atte Wyo., Osborn v. State, mpts to mock the administration of justice , there Evaluating procedural decisions Judicial proceeding; 1983 COCAP 672 P.2d 777 is no abuse of discretion . below. procedure Consequently , the present case is one in which t he defendant ’s right to be free from repeated tria ls is outweighed by the public ’s interest in the ad ministration of justice , and we find defendant ’s double jeopardy challenge without merit and ove 1981 COCAP N.C., State v. Simpson rruled . Overruling double jeopardy challenge. Judicial proceeding Questions would thus arise in numerous other cir cumstances as to which time computation rule to apply ; the efficient administration of justice requ Bankr. E.D. Mich., In re ires that the Court and counsel look to one rule fo Miramar, Inc., 70 B.R. r time computation in bankruptcy — Bankruptcy Explaining rejection of movant's Judicial proceeding; 1987 COCAP 32 Rule 9006 . position. procedure

While the federal courts in the District of Colum bia are called upon to handle a much larger perce ntage of FOIA litigation and are therefore perhap s more overburdened by in camera review in suc h cases than most courts , see Weissman v. Centr al Intelligence Agency , 565 F. 2d 692 , 697 n. 1 1 ( D.C.Cir . 1977 ) , this Court has recently enc D. Del., Coastal Gas ountered a disturbing increase in requests for in c Station Corp. v. Dept. of amera review in nonFOIA litigation which simila Discussing rationale for burden of Energy, 495 F. Supp. rly threatens to strangle the administration of just government to demonstrate a Judicial proceeding; 1980 COCAP 1172 ice in this District . document's exemption from FOIA. procedure

However , when the physical or mental condition of the patient is at issue in such action , suit or p roceeding or when a court in the exercise of soun d discretion , deems such disclosure necessary to the proper administration of justice , no informat ion communicated to , or otherwise learned by , s uch physician in connection with such attendance Me., State v. Gatcomb, , examination or treatment shall be privileged an Judicial proceeding; 1978 COCAP 389 A.2d 22 d disclosure may be required . Discussing limits of privilege. procedure However , a judge may also , through negligence or ignorance not amounting to bad faith , behave in a manner prejudicial to the administration of j Outlining bases of a judge's liability as N.C., In re Inquiry …, ustice so as to bring the judicial office into disrep against canons and ethical 1978 COCAP 295 N.C. 291 ute . responsibilities Judicial conduct The waiver rule , as other like rules of procedure , finds its justification upon the interest of a fair , Ill., People v. Friesland, orderly and expeditious administration of justice Finding no facial constitutional issue Judicial proceeding; 1985 COCAP 109 Ill. 2d 369 . in waiver of appeal procedure

Like the United States Supreme Court , Californi a courts use the following criteria to determine w hether a new rule of decisional law in criminal ca ses should be applied retroactively : ( 1 ) the purp ose of the new rule , ( 2 ) the extent of the relianc e by law enforcement authorities on the old rule , Cal., People v. Cooper, and ( 3 ) the effect on the administration of justi Judicial proceeding; 1979 COCAP 94 Cal. App. 2d 672 ce of retrospective application of the new rule . Discussing retroactivity. retroactivity

As we have seen , all of the duties pertaining to t he office of superior court clerk , whether essenti al to the office or specifically prescribed by statut Cal., Price v. Sup. Ct. e , are ministerial functions necessarily subject to Madera Cnty, 186 Cal. the control of the judges of the court so far as es Reviewing behavior of court 1986 COCAP App. 3d 156 sential to the proper administration of justice . personnel. Judiciary generally

The power that a court has over its judgments an d process notwithstanding , it is equally well esta blished that , in the interests of orderly administr ation of justice , Judges as a general rule should not disturb , vacate , reconsider or modify determ N.Y., People v. Varela, inations of a Judge of concurrent jurisdiction ( 28 Outlining appropriate bounds of Judicial proceeding; 1984 COCAP 124 Misc. 2d 992 NY Jur 2d , Courts and Judges , § 86 , p 153 ) . discretion in bail remission. procedure The district court ’s actions in this case to select the jury from the Green Bay division only is gove rned by Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which states in part : The court shall f ix the place of trial within the district with due re C.A. 7, U.S. v. gard to the convenience of the defendant and the Balistrieri, 778 F.2d witnesses and the prompt administration of justic Reviewing district court's jury Judicial proceeding; 1985 COCAP 1226 e. selection. jury

Because of this ease by ease approach , we are n ot pursuaded that affording Sandstrom retroactivi Conn., Crawford v. ty will result in a devastatingly adverse impact on Judicial proceeding; 1983 COCAP Warden, 189 Conn. 374 the administration of justice . I Discussing retroactivity retroactivity

Finding : Referee finds that the conduct of the Re spondent as outlined above would evidence cond uct ' prejudicial to the administration of justice w Minn., In re Complaint hich brings the judicial office into disrepute in vi Bar referee found misconduct 1979 COCAP …, 296 N.W.2d 648 olation of Canons [ Canon ] 3A ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) . violative of ethical rules Judicial discipline The Hearing Panel found him guilty of failing to preserve client funds in an attorney ’s special acc ount in violation of Code of Professional Respon sibility DR 9 - 102 ( A ) and 22 NYCRR 603.15 ; failing to pro mptly pay funds to which his client was entitled ( DR 9 - 102 [ B ] [ 4 ] ) ; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty , fraud , deceit or misrepresentation w hich adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law ( DR 1 - 102 [ A ] [ 4 ] , [ 6 ] ) ; and conduct prejudicial t N.Y., In re Baltimore, o the administration of justice in violation of DR 1987 COCAP 132 A.D.2d 424 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) . Bar hearing panel Discipline, lawyer Wyo., Hoggatt v. State, Citing criterion for nolo contendere plea in 1980 COCAP 606 P.2d 718 footnote. Plea Unclear Wash., Rhinehart v. Moreover , we are not convinced that the Halkin Seattle Times Co., 98 approach properly serves the administration of ju Judicial proceeding; 1982 COCAP Wash. 2d 226 stice . Discussing retroactivity. retroactivity D.C., In re Hutchison, Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the admi Citing in footnote basis for 303-day 1987 COCAP 534 A.2d 919 nistration of justice . suspension. Discipline, lawyer [ T ] he question whether the conduct complaine Ga., Garland v. State, d of interfered with the administration of justice i Exploring factual basis for contempt Judicial proceeding; 1984 COCAP 171 Ga. App. 519 n a pending case is not involved . order below. Contempt

Monsanto has appealed from this order , contend ing that the order constituted an impermissible pr ior restraint of its right of free speech in that it w Ill., Kemner v. Norfolk as entered without the necessary showing of thre & Western Ry. Co., 133 at to the administration of justice and was imper Affirming order prohibiting party's Judicial proceeding; 1985 COCAP Ill. App. 3d 597 missibly over-broad . communication with press. press access

This Court in Bowen v. State , 606 P. 2d 589 , 5 93 ( Okl.Cr .1980 ) , held that “ [ d ] ue to the ne ar certain detriment to the defendant ’s chances o f receiving a fair defense and to the administratio Reciting standard of review for denial Okla., Gilbreath v. n of justice , the defendant must clearly and uneq of motion of defense counsel to Judicial proceeding; 1982 COCAP State, 651 P.2d 699 uivocally assert his demand to proceed pro se : ‘ withdraw. procedure Pursuant to that consent judgment , the referee re commends that Seidel be found guilty of engagin g in conduct prejudicial to the administration of j ustice , engaging in conduct that adversely reflect s on his fitness to practice law , and committing Fla., Bar v. Seidel, 510 an act contrary to honesty , justice , or good mora 1987 COCAP So. 2d 871 ls . Recommendation of Bar referee. Discipline, lawyer This rule is essential to the orderly administration S.D.N.Y., Mathias v. of justice , and to prevent unseemly conflicts bet Lennon, 474 F. Supp. ween courts whose jurisdiction embraces the sam 1979 COCAP 949 e subjects and persons . Explicating a jurisdictional rule. Judicial proceeding The respondent failed to respond to the request f or investigation filed by the complainant with the Grievance Committee . The respondent ’s condu ct in case No. 83A - 56 violated C.R.C.P. 241.6 ( 1 ) ( violation of th e Code of Professional Responsibility ) and C.R. C.P. 241.6 ( 7 ) ( failure to respond to a request f rom the committee ) , and DR 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( violation of a disciplinary rule ) , DR 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 4 ) ( conduct involving dishonesty ) , DR 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) ( conduct prejudicial to the admin istration of justice ) , DR 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 6 ) ( conduct that adversely reflects o n fitness to practice law ) ' , DR 6 - 101 ( A ) ( 3 ) ( neglect of legal matter ) , and D R7- Colo., People v. Lloyd, 101 ( A ) ( 2 ) ( failure to carry out employment 1985 COCAP 696 P.2d 249 contract with client ) . Bar Grievance Committee Discipline, lawyer

The entire purpose of the finality requirement of section 1291 is to “ discourage undue litigiousne C.A.D.C., U.S. v. ss and leaden - Concluding full review of evidence's Richardson, 702 F.2d footed administration of justice , particularly da sufficiency would be available after a 1983 COCAP 1079 maging to the conduct of criminal cases . ” final verdict. Judicial proceeding Professional responsibility does not countenance the use of the attorney - client privilege as a subterfuge and all conspiraci es , either active or passive , which are calculated La., State v. Green, 493 to hinder the administration of justice will vitiate Judicial proceeding; 1986 COCAP So. 2d 1178 the privilege . Precis to evidentiary ruling. evidentiary issue

The proper administration of justice demands tha Ga., Wilkerson v. t courts have the power to enforce their orders an Judicial proceeding; 1977 COCAP Tolbert, 239 Ga. 702 d decrees by contempt proceedings . Upholding contempt order. Contempt More important than any inhibiting effect on the N.Y., People v. Le right to gather news is the public interest in the f Press privilege yields to defendant's Judicial proceeding; 1979 COCAP Grand, 67 A.D.2d 446 air administration of justice . need for exculpatory evidence. press access to Rule 14 requires the trial court to balance the rig ht of defendants to a fair trial absent the prejudic N.D. Ga., U.S. v. e that may result from joint trials , against the pu Caldwell, 594 F. Supp. blic ’s interest in efficient and economic administ Judicial proceeding; 1984 COCAP 548 ration of justice . The court severed sua sponte . procedure Ala., Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm'n v. Byayuk, 684 P.2d the effect on the administration of justice of a ret Judicial proceeding; 1984 COCAP 114 roactive application of the new rule of law . Discussing retroactivity. retroactivity

Respondent ’s actions as set forth above constitut ed a course of conduct prejudicial to the administ ration of justice as well as neglect of a legal matt er entrusted to him in that respondent failed to pr otect his client ’s interest by filing an answer to t he defendant ’s request for admissions and left th e jurisdiction without notifying his client that he would be unable to appear to represent him at the scheduled trial date and failed to direct his client Describing predicate conduct Ind., In re Merritt, 266 to counsel who could represent the client at such justifying liability to sanction as a 1977 COCAP Ind. 353 trial . matter of law. Discipline, lawyer S. Ct., Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. The Framers chose to leave to Congress the prec Marathong Pipeline Co., ise role to be played by the lower federal courts i 1982 COCAP 102 S. Ct. 2858 n the administration of justice . Discussing separation of powers Judiciary generally As recently as Rose v. Mitchell , supra , the Sup reme Court reaffirmed the longstanding fundame ntal principle that discrimination in the administr Assessing constitutional significance C.A. 11, U.S. v. Cross, ation of justice harms the accused and undermine of discriminatory jury foreman in trial Judicial proceeding; 1983 COCAP 708 F.2d 631 s the integrity of the judicial process itself . below. jury

This circuit and others have held that , when the delay is short and the defendant does not show m ore than minimal prejudice , reprosecution has lit C.A. 5, U.S. v. tle , if any , adverse impact on the administration Affirming dismissal without 1987 COCAP Melguizo, 824 F.2d 370 of justice and the administration of the Act . prejudice. Judicial proceeding The trial court must determine whether joint repr C.A. 10. U.S. v. esentation will adversely affect the effective and Judicial proceeding; 1984 COCAP Dressel, 742 F.2d 1256 fair administration of justice . Reciting considerations. procedure

We hold , under these circumstances , that judge s already assigned and sitting on other cases or ot herwise engaged in the administration of justice i Pa., Hamill Estate, 3 Pa. n this judicial district are not “ reasonably availab Deciding composition of en banc 1977 COCAP D. & C.3d 100 le ” for serving as a court en banc . court. Judiciary generally

Petitioner had the burden by clear and convincin g evidence to persuade the panel and board he ha s the proper understanding of and attitude toward s the standards imposed on State Bar members a Mich., In re Freedman, nd can be safely recommended to aid in the admi Denying reinstatement on advice of 1979 COCAP 406 Mich. 256 nistration of justice . Bar Grievance Board. Discipline, lawyer

Pa., Commonwealth v. It is evident that the orderly administration of jus Edrington, 317 Pa. tice requires that a criminal controversy , like any Denying reargument of validity of 1983 COCAP Super. 545 other litigation , some day come to an end . guilty plea. Judicial proceeding

In recommending the appointment of a Special Master , the Magistrate noted that while the Mast er ’s recommended functions could , as a technic al matter , be performed by a magistrate , it woul S.D.N.Y., Park-Tower d be seriously prejudicial to the proper administr Development Group, ation of justice in this District to allocate so muc Judicial proceeding; Inc., v. Goldfeld, 87 h of a magistrate ’s time to serve the parties in th appointment of 1980 COCAP F.R.D. 96 is particular multi-million dollar lawsuit . Assessing sanctions for default. special master We also reject defendant ’s contention that retroa N.C., Cox. V. Haworth, ctive application of Nicholson will unduly burden Judicial proceeding; 1981 COCAP 304 N.C. 571 the administration of justice . Discussing retroactivity. retroactivity When the first case was called for trial , in order to facilitate the administration of justice , the trial S.C., Creel v. King, 287 judge ordered that all four cases arising out of th Reversing and remanding order for Judicial proceeding; 1985 COCAP S.C. 205 is accident be consolidated . consolidated trials below. procedure While the duty of a lawyer to disclose facts regar ding his own conduct to an investigating tribunal is not entirely clear in the Code of Professional R esponsibility ( see American Bar Association Mo del Rules of Professional Conduct § 8.1 and com ment thereto ) , an attorney in this State is subjec t to discipline for failing to report to the Committ ee on Professional Conduct unprivileged knowle dge of a lawyer ’s conduct involving dishonesty , fraud , deceit or misrepresentation or conduct pr ejudicial to the administration of justice or condu ct reflecting adversely on a lawyer ’s fitness to pr N.H., Eshleman's Case, actice law . DR 1 - 103 ; 1 - Addressing failure to disclose 1985 COCAP 126 N.H. 1 102 ( 4 ) , ( 5 ) , ( 6 ) . disciplinary record. Discipline, lawyer

Removal should be limited to cases urgently dem anding that action , but the balancing of the defen dant ’s confrontation right with the need for the p C.A. 8, Scurr v. Moore, roper administration of justice is a task uniquely Judicial proceeding; 1981 COCAP 647 F.2d 854 suited to the trial judge . Assessing possible contempt below. Contempt To sustain a finding of direct contempt of court , it must be shown that the particular conduct was calculated to embarrass , hinder or obstruct the c ourt in its administration of justice , or to lessen i Ill., People v. Stewart, ts authority of dignity , or to bring the administra Judicial proceeding; 1978 COCAP 58 Ill. App. 3d 630 tion of law into dispute . Reviewing contempt finding. Contempt

This power is essential to preserve the authority Mich., In re Contempt of the courts and to prevent the administration of Judicial proceeding; 1982 COCAP …, 113 Mich. App. 549 justice from falling into disrepute . Upholding summary contempt. Contempt

The following considerations are pertinent to the issue of whether Ross should be given full retroa ctivity , limited retroactivity , or prospectivity onl Mich., Moorhouse v. y : ( 1 ) the purpose of the new rule , ( 2 ) the gen Ambassador Ins. Co., eral reliance upon the old rule , and ( 3 ) the effec Inc., 147 Mich. App. t of full retroactive application of the new rule on Judicial proceeding; 1985 COCAP 412 the administration of justice Discussing retroactivity retroactivity

The Court made clear , however , that critical to i C.A.D.C., Grace v. ts decision was the fact that the statute was draw Burger, 214 U.S. App. n narrowly to apply only to picketing with an inte Reviewing overbreadth of statute used 1981 COCAP D.C. 375 nt to interfere with the administration of justice . below. Judicial proceeding

Section 18 ( b ) specifies that the applicant must show that “ he or she has good moral character , general fitness to practice law and that his or her resumption of the practice of law in this state will Ore., In re Bevans, 655 not be detrimental to the administration of justic Outlining legal standard back of 1982 COCAP P.2d 573 e or the public interest . ” reinstatement. Discipline, lawyer Pa., Commonwealth v. Appellant also argues that the evidence was insuf Falkenhan, 452 A.2d ficient to prove an “ actual obstruction ” of the ad Finding meritless appeal of Judicial proceeding; 1982 COCAP 750 ministration of justice . obstruction for refusal to participate. interference with

Furthermore , the judge who allowed the motion Mass., Berube v. had been involved with several phases of the acti McKesson Wine & on ’s development and undoubtedly was aware th No abuse of discretion in (affirmed) Spirits Co., 7 Mass. at its restoration to the trial list would not disrupt order allowing motion for relief from 1979 COCAP App. Ct. 426 the administration of justice in the county . judgment. Judicial proceeding

If such bifurcated procedures were encouraged or sustained , it would create duplication , and unce N.D., Shark Bros. Inc. rtainty , and waste manpower and money , with n Refusing to allow bifurcated Judicial and v. Cass Cnty, 256 o appreciable result , and all without improving t procedure in judicial and administrative 1977 COCAP N.W.2d 701 he administration of justice . administrative venues. proceeding

Castle v. State , 237 Ind. 83 , 143 N.E. 2d 570 , 5 Collecting precedent on judicial Md., St. v. Frazier, 470 72 ( 1957 ) ( trial court failed in its duty to “ ensu reactions to delays caused by Judicial proceeding; 1984 COCAP A.2d 1269 re efficient administration of justice ” ) congestion. delay of

Moreover , unauthorized ex parte contacts of wh atever nature erode public confidence in the fairn Cal., In re Jonathan S., ess of the administration of justice , the very cem Assessing liability to sanctions of 1979 COCAP 88 Cal. App. 3d 468 ent by which the system holds together . juvenile court judge. Discipline, judge

What is at issue in this proceeding is whether pet itioner met the burden of demonstrating by clear In re Anonymous Nos. and convincing evidence that he has the moral qu 26 D.B. 73 and 32 D.B. alifications and that the resumption of practice by 73, Disciplinary Board him will be neither detrimental to the integrity a of the Supreme Court of nd standing of the bar or the administration of ju 1986 COCAP Pennsylvania stice , not subversive to the public interest . Considering reinstatement. Discipline, lawyer In Bar Docket No. 57 - 83 , the Hearing Committee found that Respond ent was guilty of neglecting a legal matter entrust ed to him , in violation of DR 6 - 101 ( A ) ( 3 ) , and conduct prejudicial to the ad ministration of justice , in violation of DR 1 - 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) , and for these violations the Hear D.C., In re Washington, ing Committee recommended a suspension of thr Recommendation of Hearing 1985 COCAP 489 A.2d 452 ee months . Committee. Discipline, lawyer As a matter of sound administration of justice , T exas courts will not intervene in the domestic aff Tex., Perry v. Ponder, airs of nonresidents , but will leave them to litigat 1980 COCAP 604 S.W.2d 306 e in their home states . Judicial proceeding Pa., Commonwealth v. Jackson, 367 Pa. Super. And in desperation , he did what he did in order t Judicial proceeding; 1987 COCAP 6 o delay the administration of justice . Recalling transcript below contempt

Implicit in what we said is that the judicial power to punish a lawyer summarily for contempt of co urt , essential to facilitate the orderly administrati on of justice ( Gallagher v. Municipal Court ( 19 48 ) 31 Cal .2 d 784,788 [ 192 P. 2d 905 ] ) , is q ualified by the cumulative effect of the lawyer ’s right to engage in respectful advocacy on behalf of his client ( Cooper v. Superior Court ( 1961 ) 55 Cal .2 d 291 , 303 [ 10 Cal.Rptr . 842 , 359 P. Cal., Bloom v. Sup. Ct. 2d 274 ] ) , strict compliance with the statutory f of San Diego Cnty, 185 ramework and the lawyer ’s personal right to due Recalling previous refusal to find Judicial proceeding; 1986 COCAP Cal. App. 3d 409 process contempt. contempt

Next , the defendant in Local 542 contended , as does the respondent , that the fact that the trial ju dge did not bring the contempt charge immediate ly when the act was committed , but instead dela yed 24 hours , was proof that respondent ’s cond uct did not obstruct the administration of justice as required under 18 U.S.C.A. § 401 ( 1 ) and th erefore it was not properly punishable summarily under Rule 42 ( a ) , Fed.P . Crim.P , , and shoul W.D. Pa., U.S. v. d have been prosecuted only after notice and hear Renfroe, 634 F. Supp. ing before another judge as required by Fed.R.Cr Judicial proceeding; 1986 COCAP 1536 im.P . 42 ( b ) . Rejecting theory against contempt. contempt

Although the court in Craig did indicate that the news articles were " by any standard ” unfair , it nevertheless found that the clear and present dan N.Y., Wuinn v. Aetna ger test had not been met , stating that the utteran Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 96 ces " must constitute an imminent , not merely a Judicial proceeding; 1978 COCAP Misc. 2d 545 likely , threat to the administration of justice . ” Outlining standards for contemot. contempt

Based upon these facts , the jury found defendant C.A. 11, U.S. v. Brand, s committed a corrupt endeavor , tending to impe Overturning jury verdict based on Judicial proceeding; 1985 COCAP 775 F.2d 1460 de the due administration of justice . facts not violative of s. 1503. jury ithout further explanation , the court declared tha t the in - state attorney ’s admission to the bar “ does not r aise the same concern for the efficient administra S. Ct., Frazier v. Heebe, tion of justice that admission of nonresident attor 1987 COCAP 96 L. Ed. 2d 557 neys does . ” Recalling facts below Bar generally

To compel the government to do so “ would creat e an insuperable obstacle to the administration of justice in many cases in whieh there is no sembl Demurring from requiring government Law enforcement; Conn., State v. Aillon, ance of the type of oppressive practices at which to prosecute all counts against the prosecutorial 1980 COCAP 182 Conn. 124 the double - jeopardy prohibition is aimed . ” same defendant "at one go." discretion The needless delays engendered by frivolous app Pa., Commonwealth v. eals hinder the administration of justice as well a Refusing to entertain appeal upon Judicial proceeding; 1980 COCAP Brady, 508 A.2d 286 s the public interest . finding below motion is frivolous. procedure The primary aim of disciplinary proceedings agai nst a judge is to maintain the honor and dignity o N.D., In re Maragos, f the judiciary and the proper administration of ju 1979 COCAP 285 N.W.2d 541 stice Policy back of judicial discipline. Discipline, judge

and that his resumption of the practice of law in t his state will be neither detrimental to the integrit Ore., In re Complaint y and standing of the bar or the administration of 1980 COCAP …, 290 Or. 113 justice nor subversive to the public interest . Quoting rules en bloc. Bar generally The Board modified the conclusion to find a viol ation of ( CPR ) DR 1 - Wash., In re Zderic, 92 102 ( A ) ( 5 ) ( engaging in conduct prejudicial 1979 COCAP Wash. 2d 777 to the administration of justice ) . Board Conclusion Discipline, lawyer

The Mississippi State Bar Complaints Tribunal f ound the appellant guilty of violating the followin g disciplinary rules : DR 1 - 102 . Misconduct ( A ) A lawyer shall not : ( 1 ) Violate a Disciplinary Rule . ( 3 ) Engage in illeg al conduct involving moral turpitude . ( 4 ) Engag Miss., Clark v. Miss. e in conduct involving dishonesty , fraud , deceit Bar Ass'n, 471 So. 2d , or misrepresentation . ( 5 ) Engage in conduct t 1985 COCAP 352 hat is prejudicial to the administration of justice . Board Conclusion Discipline, lawyer Similarly , if a crime is quite serious , barring rep Law enforcement; C.A. 11, U.S. v. Godoy, rosecution will have a severe impact on the admi Outlining factors to determin propriety prosecutorial 1987 COCAP 821 F.2d 1498 nistration of justice . of reprosecution. discretion Access or closure issues involving the press requ Fla., State ex rel Harte- ire a showing ( a ) that the action is necessary to Hanks v. Austin, 2 Fla. prevent a serious and imminent threat to the adm Outlining where press freedoms Judicial proceeding; 1983 COCAP Supp. 2d 160 inistration of justice , recede before needs of defendant. press access to

The same question can not be presented in succe ssive petitions for writs of habeas corpus before t he same court ( Com . ex rel . v. Shovlin , 24 Be aver 94 ( 1962 ) ) , and we fail to see how the pro mpt and orderly administration of justice is to be fostered by presenting a subsequent petition to th Pa., Noyer v. e very court whose purported inaction is being co Commonwealth, 20 Pa. mplained of under a subsisting petition presently Agreeing with magistrate that habeas Judicial proceeding; 1981 COCAP D. & C.3d 659 being considered by our Federal district court . petition lacked merit. delay of [ I ] t is a general principle of the highest import ance to the proper administration of justice that a C.A. 5, United judicial officer , in exercising the authority veste Steelworkers of Am., d in him , shall be free to act upon his own convi AFL-CIO v. Bishop, ctions , without apprehension of personal conseq Policy back of upholding judicial 1979 COCAP 598 F.2d 408 uences to himself . immunity. Judiciary generally Zywicki had consulted with an attorney concerni ng the legality of his activities and had been infor med that the Superior Court for the District of C olumbia had construed the statute that prohibited leafletting , 40 U. S. C. § 13k , to prohibit only c onduct done with the specific intent to influence , Sup. Ct., U.S. v. Grace, impede , or obstruct the administration of justice Outlining lawyer's assessment of 1983 COCAP 103 S. Ct. 1702 . legality of defendant's leafletting. Unclear The Supreme Court has often considered the effe C.A. 5, Stretton v. ct of retroactivity on the administration of justice Judicial Penrod Drilling Co., as a relevant factor in determining the retroactivi proceceding; 1983 COCAP 701 F.2d 441 ty question . Discussing retroactivity. retroactivity Hearing committee [ ] in its report filed May 18 , 1983 recommended that the petition for reinstate ment be denied because petitioner failed to demo nstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he has the moral qualifications required for admissi on to the practice of law in the Commonwealth o In re Anonymous No. 4 f Pennsylvania and because the admission of Peti D.B. 76, Disciplinary tioner to the resumption of the practice of law wo Board of the Supreme uld be detrimental to ' the administration of justic 1983 COCAP Court of Pennsylvania e and subversive to the public interest Committee Recommendation Discipline, lawyer

In leaving the breadth of the jurisdiction of the as sociate divisions of the circuit courts to the judici ary , the General Assembly may well have believ ed that the circuit courts , subject to the supervisi on of the Supreme Court and certain statutory res trictions ( some of which are mentioned in this o pinion ) , can best decide what cases or classes of Mo., St. ex rel McNaul cases should be assigned to associate circuit jud v. Bonacker, 711 ges in order to promote the efficient administrati Considering whether refusal of 1986 COCAP S.W.2d 566 on of justice in Missouri . jurisdiction was misconduct. Discipline, judge

Justice Powell has pointed out that it “ hardly co mports with the ideal of ‘ administration of justic e with an even hand , ’” when “ one chance bene ficiary — the lucky individual whose case was ch osen as the occasion for announcing the new prin ciple — enjoys retroactive application , while oth Sup. Ct., Griffith v. Ky., ers similarly situated have their claims adjudicate Judicial proceeding; 1987 COCAP 1987 U.S. LEXIS 283 d under the old doctrine . Discussing retroactivity retroactivity The destruction of evidence has a uniquely dama ging effect on the administration of justice , for o Withholding immunity from law Law enforcement; E.D. Pa., Wilkinson v. nce evidence has been destroyed it can not be ret enforcement officers who destroyed destruction of 1980 COCAP Ellis, 484 F. Supp. 1072 rieved for judicial review . evidence. evidence There the plaintiff argued that the phrase , “ cond uct which is prejudicial to the administration of j Ill., People ex rel. ustice or which brings the judicial office into disr Harrod v. Ill. Courts epute , ” was unconstitutionally vague and overly Reciting precedentg in instant 1977 COCAP Comm'n, 69 Ill. 2d 445 broad . consideration of judge's conduct. Discipline, judge

The modern view is that the privilege promotes t Articulating rational for, while Fla., Brookings v. State, he administration of justice by “ encouraging clie refusing to find waiver of, attorney- Judicial proceeding; 1986 COCAP 495 So. 2d 135 nts to lay thé facts fully before their counsel . client privilege. evidentiary issue

Ill., Hurletron Whittier, Finally , requiring defendant to defend this lawsu Inc. v. Barda, 82 Ill. it in Illinois is neither reasonable nor in keeping Refusing to require defendant to Judicial proceeding; 1980 COCAP App. 3d 443 with the orderly administration of justice . defend the case in Illinois. procedure

To those aware of the problem , it is readily appa rent that compliance with the seemingly clear ins tructions just noted [ Note 3 ( e ) under MAI - CR2d 15.00 ] would contribute more to the orde rly administration of justice than have the efforts of this and other appellate courts to approve or di sapprove of the absence thereof [ the instruction Mo., State v. Gordon, on conventional manslaughter ] in specific cases Reversing and remanding on account Judicial proceeding; 1981 COCAP 621 S.W.2d 262 . of failure properly to instruct the jury. jury

Their sole warrant is the protection of interests a nd relationships which , rightly or wrongly , are r N.J., Fitzgibbon v. egarded as of sufficient social importance to justi Fitzgibbon, 197 N.J. fy some incidental sacrifice of sources of facts ne Judicial proceeding; 1984 COCAP Super. 63 eded in the administration of justice . Qualifying spousal privilege. evidentiary issue Miss., Myers v. Miss. The courts of this state are dedicated to the fair a St. Bar, 480 So. 2d nd equal administration of justice and act in acco No error where court was unaware 1985 COCAP 1080 rdance with that high principle . that a party had no representation. Judicial proceeding He who makes studied inquiries of jurors as to w E.D. Mich., U.S. v. hat occurred there acts at his peril , lest he be hel Narciso, 446 F. Supp. d as acting in obstruction of the administration of Upholding prohibition on post-trial Judicial proceeding; 1977 COCAP 252 justice . contact between lawyer and jurors. jury Thereafter , on August 25 , 1983 , a criminal co mplaint was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County charging appellant with perju Consequence for appellant who had Pa., Commonwealth v. ry , false swearing , and obstructing the administr made false sworn representations to 1986 COCAP Thomas, 506 A.2d 420 ation of justice . grand jury. Grand Jury The First Amendment Interest in Litigation and t he Administration of Justice Defendants correctl C.A.D.C., In re Halkin, y point out that attorneys “ have historically been Discussing lawyers' qualified retention 1979 COCAP 194 U.S. App. D.C. 257 ‘ officers of the courts [ , ] ’ ” of First Amendment rights. Judicial proceeding ( 1 ) The purpose of the new rule , ( 2 ) general Mich., People v. Kamin, reliance on the old rule and ( 3 ) the effect on the Judicial proceeding; 1979 COCAP 405 Mich. 482 administration of justice . Discussing retroactivity. retroactivity

The court may in its wisdom temper the administration of justice by casing the degree Toorrow's Son (Robert of punishment, but in this case sees no reason for Judicial decision- 1977 COHA Hoskins) leniency. Judicial decision-making making

His characterization of the legal profession as being motivated by self-interest does a disservice to the thousands of lawyers who have actively involved themselves in nonpaying charitable activities in their local communities throughout the state. It also fails to take into consideration the active, concerted effort of state and local bar associations to aid in the administration of Bar associations upholding the 1977 COHA NYT Letter to Editor justice, which is a social commitment. administration of justice Bar associations

Justice Powell said that a judge, when presented with a request to close a hearing, should first JUSTICES, 5-4, LIMIT decide " whether there are alternative means COURTROOM reasonably available by which the fairness of the ACCESS BY PRESS trial might be preserved without interfering AND PUBLIC; substantially with the public's interest in prompt JUDGE'S PRETRIAL access to information concerning Judge deciding whether to close a Judicial decision- 1979 COHA BAN UPHELD (NYT) the administration of justice. " hearing to acess making Realities and Illusions This court modeled after the Chicago Municipal (Frances Moley, Court was an innovation in the administration of Expansion of municipal court to take 1980 COHA autobiography) justice. civil and criminal jurisdiction. Courts generally

My familiarity with Pound's writing came from the writing of my essay on the Cleveland Realities and Illusions Municipal Court, in which I included a (Frances Moley, sprinkling of quotations from Pound's article on 1980 COHA autobiography) the administration of justice in the modern city. Courts generally Courts generally While he had expressed views concerning Realities and Illusions the administration of justice which were rated (Frances Moley, liberal, he was as solidly Republican and as 1980 COHA autobiography) conservative as William H. Taft. Author's view of Pound Courts generally When the survey was about half finished, he proposed to the Committee that there be a Realities and Illusions division of the survey which would deal with the (Frances Moley, influence of the newspapers in Press reporting about the 1980 COHA autobiography) the administration of justice. administration of justice Unclear

Neither did the adults who managed the education system, nor the lawyers and judges in our courts, nor the Governor, nor those who led Jimmy Carter, Speaking our Government in Washington and were Out for Human Rights, responsible for the administration of justice in Government 1982 COHA TIME our great and free nation. I School desegration generally " Rose Bird, " said Deukmejian in his campaign, Bennett H. Beach, No " has done more damage to the California Longer Best or Supreme Court and the administration of justice 1982 COHA Brightest, TIME than any of her predecessors. " Campaign for state chief justice Courts generally

or a concept of " political justice " that does away Gertrude Himmelfarb, with a need for any kind of polity or The Compleat Utopian, any administration of justice; or a humanism that The New Republic: would like to " extirpate " much of human nature 12/31/84, Vol. 191 Issue as we know it, including sex, emotion, parental Government 1984 COHA 26, p25-30, 6p love, even parental identity. Describing view of thinker. generally

Henry V made a deliberate effort to grasp again all the reins of power; hugely self-confident, industrious, clear in his objectives and determined to have his way in all things, he was a fright-ening and much feared figure among the ruling class; but he simply did not have the time Paul Johnson, A History to supervise directly the administration of justice Executive power; 1985 COHA of the English People and finance, while engaged on a war of conquest. Henry V's reign law enforcement

Leon Botstein, Better For example, Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller Than Receiving, The have consistently sponsored studies and issued New Republic: reports under their own aegis intended to shape 12/29/86, Vol. 195 Issue social legislation, foreign policy, public opinion, Describing robber barons' 1986 COHA 26, p34-38, 4p and the administration of justice. philanthropy. Unclear