Complaints filed against Maryland judges disappear into what critics call a black hole that lets no light or substance escape.
The Commission on Judicial Disabilities, set up 27 years ago to handle complaints of misconduct or bias, operates in secrecy. Critics say it is underfunded, understaffed, reluctant to punish and too packed with judges to render impartial decisions.
During the panel's lifetime, only three judges have been removed as a result of its investigations -- all for fixing traffic tickets.
The commission takes months and often more than a year to investigate complaints. Those who file grievances -- even other judges -- say they rarely find out what has happened as a result.
"I am the head of the District Court, and I am told absolutely nothing," said Chief Judge Robert J. Sweeney, who forwards complaints from residents about members of his bench. "They don't believe me when I say, 'I took it and I filed it, and I have not heard one word back.' They say, 'But you're the chief judge!' "
As a result, the commission has lost credibility with the legal profession and the public.
Joseph I. Cassilly, Harford County state's attorney, said he knew for years that women lawyers were complaining about the conduct of Harford District Court's administrative judge. But he said he decided not to go to the Judicial Disabilities Commission.
"There's a perception that nothing will happen," he said. And having made a complaint with no results, "You're still stuck. You're still there appearing before the guy, or woman. You're out there with no protection."
Instead, the Harford lawyers waited for Judge John S. Landbeck's renomination hearing before the Maryland Senate. Rather than face a confirmation battle, Judge Landbeck announced Wednesday that he would not seek a second term.
The commission's defenders, including past members, say the panel is far more active than it seems. They say it operates informally, persuading judges to change or retire quietly.
Many also defend the secrecy, calling it necessary to protect the independence of the judiciary. "So many complaints are unfounded," said Judge Theodore G. Bloom of the Court of Special Appeals, who chaired the panel through 1994. He and others estimated that 50 percent to 70 percent of the complaints are filed by people who lost their cases -- and assumed the fix was in.
"The idea of confidentiality was to guard against that," Judge Bloom said. "The principal function of the Judicial Disabilities Commission is to keep the judiciary in line, and not to satisfy the public."
Calls for reform
Baltimore County Circuit Judge Barbara Kerr Howe, the panel's new chair, said she understands the public's frustration -- and shares it.
As a commission member, under current rules, "You can't even comment whether there is a complaint pending," she said.
Judge Howe supports proposed rule changes that would open misconduct proceedings, create deadlines for investigations and notify complainants of the outcome.
Those changes could be adopted by the Court of Appeals as early as March, and put into effect by July 1, said Chief Judge Alan M. Wilner of the Court of Special Appeals, chairman of the judiciary subcommittee that oversees the commission.
If Maryland's judges won't change the commission, critics may do it.
Spurred by women's rights groups angered by judges' remarks in two Baltimore County cases, some legislators are pushing for a constitutional amendment that would make fundamental changes in the commission.
They envision a new, more powerful discipline panel with more open procedures, more lay members and a full-time investigative staff.
"One of the problems with the current commission is they have no budget and no staff. That's probably why nothing happens. And quite frankly, people are not going to stand for it anymore," said Sen. Paula C. Hollinger, the Pikesville Democrat who is drafting the amendment.
While some changes could be made by the legislature or the judiciary itself, increasing the number of lay members requires a constitutional amendment.
Voters in Pennsylvania and California recently approved constitutional changes in their judicial discipline panels that eliminated the dominance of judges.
Complaints against judges fall into two general categories. One is official misconduct, which can include bribery, ticket fixing and conflicts of interest.
The other, more difficult to deal with, category involves bias, fairness and conduct on the bench.
For example, Maryland's overwhelmingly male judiciary has come under fire from women's groups who complain of insensitivity and bias toward women in domestic violence, sexual assault and child support cases.
By the numbers, Maryland has one of the least active judicial discipline commissions in the country, according to The Center for Judicial Conduct Organizations.
In the 1992-1993 fiscal year, the last for which figures are available, Maryland's commission received only 34 complaints -- fewer than panels in Nebraska or Alaska, whose populations are much smaller than Maryland's.
L By contrast, New York's commission fielded 1,452 complaints.
Some critics said the panel's secrecy and slowness have a chilling effect.
Like Mr. Cassilly, lawyers with legitimate complaints said they remain silent because the result of going to the commission could anger a judge.
"If you make a public complaint and nothing happens, this is a judge you have to deal with," said Paula J. Peters, an Annapolis attorney assigned by the Women's Bar Association of Maryland to collect complaints against Baltimore County judges.
Judges respond to these arguments with bewilderment and indignation.
"I can understand that a little bit of fear is enough, especially if there's some risk -- and particularly if their complaint is not enough -- if it is trivial," said Chief Judge Robert C. Murphy of the Court of Appeals.
But he recalled setting up a committee of judges and distinguished lawyers more than 15 years ago to consider similar accusations.
"This statewide committee got appreciably no business," he declared. "Lawyers say these things happen, and then you give them an avenue and then they fall back on that -- they say !B they're intimidated. But it's not that. When you come down to it, they don't follow through."
Bollinger and Cahill
Until recently, the Judicial Disabilities Commission operated in near-obscurity.
But in spring 1993, an uproar ensued when Baltimore County Circuit Judge Thomas J. Bollinger made sympathetic comments, then gave probation before judgment to a 44-year-old man who had raped an intoxicated 18-year-old employee.
The commission labored more than 18 months over the judge's statements, which occurred at a sentencing hearing and in subsequent interviews.
In November 1994, the commission issued a private reprimand -- which Judge Bollinger chose to make public.
Cynics said the commission would have let the Bollinger complaints die quietly had it not been for a second outcry.
In October, Circuit Judge Robert E. Cahill Sr. made sympathetic comments as he sentenced a truck driver to 18 months on work release for killing his unfaithful wife.
Women's groups were outraged, and the panel now has several formal complaints against Judge Cahill. Barbara Dale, a local artist and businesswoman, filed one that included signatures of dozens of local businessmen, Pulitzer-prize winning author Taylor Branch, and Orioles' Hall of Fame pitcher Jim Palmer.
"I was really disappointed with the Bollinger thing: It took too long and it was too little. I think it sends a message that a judge can get away with doing these things with just a minor slap on the wrist," Ms. Dale said. "They have a larger public trust, and they're not living up to it."
Judge Bloom, the former commission chairman, conceded that the Bollinger case lingered too long.
"I think we owe the public an apology," he said. "Our only explanation is we were not equipped either by staff or experience to handle what was at that time a unique situation: a public outcry instead of a private complaint. . . . Never in the history of this commission has there been anything like this. Maybe we'll know better next time."
As far as the public knows, during its life span the commission has formally recommended the removal of just one jurist: a Frederick County District Court judge who forged another judge's signature to give a political supporter's grandson
probation before judgment on a traffic ticket.
The commission's work
Two other judges were removed by the Court of Appeals for fixing parking tickets in Baltimore City -- but the commission recommended only censure. In all three cases, the commission acted only after the allegations had been publicized.
At least three other judges have been publicly censured: one for accepting an interest-free loan from a bail bondsman, another for using his influence to make a real estate deal, and a third for conducting estate auctions while serving on the Orphans Court, which handles estates.
But defenders say Maryland's commission is more active than its record suggests.
The panel has obtained the retirement of judges who became ill or mentally incapacitated. It has persuaded those with alcohol or drug abuse problems to seek treatment. And it has forced the resignations of a few "judicial tyrants," according to Baltimore Circuit Judge Marshall A. Levin, who served on the commission from 1978 to 1987.
"There were some complaints the judge didn't even contest," Judge Levin said, recalling a jurist who was incapable of making decisions and resigned after a rash of complaints. "Others had a variety of problems: drinking too much, senility, or being unnecessarily abrasive with lawyers and the public."
With personality problems, he said, "Sometimes the commission could produce a salutary effect because we were the peers of the judge, so he couldn't browbeat us. When we remonstrated with the judge, it did make a difference."
Sometimes, problems wind up directly in the hands of Chief Judge Murphy, whose powers of persuasion are legendary.
Judge Murphy said he has spoken privately with mentally disabled judges who needed to step down and some who were accused of sexual harassment.
"The judge denies it, and I say, 'Look, this is what's being said,' and they say 'OK.' And that usually ends it," Judge Murphy said. But he said he does not use an informal approach once the commission has received a complaint.
Common grievances
Judges familiar with the Judicial Disability Commission's work said most complaints don't deserve more than a glance.
The most common grievances come from losing parties who want to retry their cases. The next most common involve judges' attempts to be funny.
Judge Bloom said that before they say anything rash, "Judges should sit down and write it out -- to see how it sounds. We run into difficulty when we talk off the top of our heads."