Halvorsen v. Judge Harada ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                               04/17/2020
    PR 20-0072
    Case Number: PR 20-0072
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    
    2020 MT 89
    INQUIRY CONCERNING COMPLAINT OF:
    ELIZABETH HALVERSON, JACQUELYN HUGHES,
    KAREN JARUSSI, AND HON. GREG TODD,
    Complainants,
    v.
    HONORABLE ASHLEY HARADA, District
    Court Judge, Thirteenth Judicial District,
    Respondent.
    PROFESSIONAL REGULATION:                    Judicial Standards Commission of the
    Supreme Court of the State of Montana
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Judicial Standards Commission:
    Ed McLean, Special Prosecutor, Missoula, Montana
    For Respondent:
    Russ Fagg, Russ Fagg and Associates, P.L.L.C., Billings, Montana
    Decided: April 17, 2020
    Filed:
    r--6ta•--df
    __________________________________________
    Clerk
    Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivers the Opinion and Order of Discipline of the Court.
    ¶1    This matter comes before the Court on a formal complaint filed by the Judicial
    Standards Commission (Commission) against Montana District Court Judge Ashley
    Harada. Ed McLean, Retired District Court Judge, acted as a special prosecutor for the
    Commission in this matter. On February 24, 2020, Special Prosecutor McLean filed a
    Second Amended Formal Complaint, charging Judge Harada with six counts of
    misconduct.    Judge Harada filed her Answer on March 10, 2020, admitting the
    substantive allegations of the Second Amended Formal Complaint.
    ¶2    On March 12, 2020, the Commission filed with the Court its recommendation that
    this Court accept an Acknowledgment and Agreement reached with Judge Harada. The
    Commission further recommended that this Court publicly censure Judge Harada for the
    conduct set forth in the Second Amended Formal Complaint.
    BACKGROUND
    ¶3    This judicial disciplinary matter arises from several allegations of misconduct by
    Judge Harada while she was a candidate for District Judge in the Thirteenth Judicial
    District, Yellowstone County, Department 8, and additional allegations about
    misstatements she made under oath while giving a deposition about those allegations.
    Special Prosecutor McLean charged Judge Harada with six counts of misconduct, as set
    forth below.
    ¶4    Count I alleges that Judge Harada violated M. C. Jud. Cond. R. 4.1(A)(4) and
    4.1(A)(7) by having on her Facebook page endorsements from the Yellowstone County
    2
    Republican Party; Denise Johnson, Republican candidate for House District 48; and
    Elinor Swanson, Libertarian candidate for U.S. House of Representatives. Judge Harada
    admitted that she violated these Rules by failing to remove those endorsements from her
    Facebook page. However, she further alleges she contacted the Commission regarding
    the Republican Party endorsement, but received no response.
    ¶5    Count II alleges that Judge Harada violated M. C. Jud. Cond. R. 4.1(A)(1) and
    4.1(A)(4) because the Harada Law Firm had contributed to a partisan congressional
    candidate. Although the contribution check appeared to be signed by Judge Harada’s
    husband Tim Harada, Tim was not a member of the Harada Law Firm, and when the
    campaign sent a letter inquiring as to whom to attribute the contribution, the name
    “Ashley Harada” was written in. Judge Harada has admitted this violation. However,
    she further alleges she did not ask Tim to make this donation on her behalf and she
    believes the donation should have been attributed to the signature on the check under the
    federal election laws and the Code of Federal Regulations.
    ¶6    Count III alleges that Judge Harada violated M. C. Jud. Cond. R. 4.1(A)(3) and
    4.1(A)(7) by publicly endorsing Republican candidate for Yellowstone County
    Commissioner Don Jones and Republican incumbent candidate Musselshell and Golden
    Valley County Attorney Kevin Peterson.          Judge Harada has admitted this violation.
    However, she further states that these endorsements were on her personal Facebook page
    and she maintained privacy settings on that page to ensure her personal views did not
    become public as required by American Bar Association Opinion 462 (2013). Judge
    3
    Harada adds that she “understands the more stringent requirements of the Judicial
    Standards of Montana, as opposed to the guidance of the ABA.”
    ¶7       Count IV alleges that Judge Harada violated M. C. Jud. Cond. R. 4.1(A)(10) by
    attributing to herself two years of law experience while she was a law student under the
    student practice rules, but while not recognized as a member of the Montana Bar or
    admitted to practice by this Court. Count IV further alleges that Judge Harada gave
    herself credit for approximately 80 jury trials while she was on inactive status with the
    Montana Bar and which she attended while a law clerk for a federal judge. Judge Harada
    has admitted only that she violated this Rule by attributing to herself two years of law
    experience while she was a law student under the student practice rules. She adds that
    while she accepts that this was an improper representation, during those two years, she
    represented clients, wrote and filed briefs, appeared in court with clients, and sat second
    chair in a federal jury trial.
    ¶8       Count V alleges that Judge Harada violated M. C. Jud. Cond. R. 4.1(A)(10) while
    she was a candidate for District Judge by making false and misleading statements to the
    University of Montana School of Law about H.W. to preclude H.W.’s admission as a law
    student because of a personal grievance. Judge Harada has admitted this violation.
    ¶9       Count VI alleges that Judge Harada violated M. C. Jud. Cond. R. 1.2 and 2.17(A)1
    by employing H.W. as a nanny, babysitter, and/or office worker without proper reporting
    1
    Both the Second Amended Formal Complaint and Judge Harada’s Answer indicate
    M. C. Jud. Cond. R. 2.7; however, the Second Amended Formal Complaint quotes
    M. C. Jud. Cond. R. 2.17(A) and it is clear to this Court that the former was a typographical
    error.
    4
    to the Internal Revenue Service, the Montana Department of Revenue, or Workers’
    Compensation, and while Judge Harada committed this violation prior to becoming a
    candidate for judicial office, she denied it under oath while giving her deposition in this
    matter and after becoming a District Judge. Special Prosecutor McLean noted that when
    Judge Harada gave her deposition, she relied on information from her accountant and
    after the deposition, Judge Harada’s accountant advised her that, based upon subsequent
    training the accountant received, H.W. would be considered an employee.             Special
    Prosecutor McLean further noted that Judge Harada was making the necessary efforts to
    remedy this matter through the appropriate government agencies, and she had arranged
    through her accountant to file amended tax returns and to bear any tax burdens and FICA
    expense. Judge Harada has admitted this violation, and agreed with Special Prosecutor
    McLean’s additional comments.
    ¶10    In addition to her Answer, Judge Harada signed a separate Acknowledgment and
    Agreement setting forth the following:
    A. Judge Ashley Harada acknowledges and agrees that the attorney/judge
    Complainants in this matter acted in accordance with the Montana Rules of
    Professional Conduct with regard to reporting to the Commission on
    Judicial Standards; and she will cast no aspersions on nor will she engage
    in any retribution or retaliation, direct or indirect, toward any Complainant,
    witness, or person connected to this complaint, investigation, and
    resolution, including, but not limited to, Elizabeth Halverson, Jacquelyn
    Hughes, Karen Jarussi, Honorable Gregory Todd, Katherine Berst, Teague
    Westrope, Hanna Walter, Jon Walter and Cindy Walter.
    B. For all such time as Judge Harada serves as a judicial officer, she agrees
    to immediately recuse herself from any matter in which appear the
    Complainants, witnesses, persons connected to this complaint, or family
    members of the same, including, but not limited to, the persons identified in
    paragraph A above.
    5
    In the same document, Judge Harada and the Commission agreed that a public censure is
    the appropriate discipline “concerning the admissions to the violations alleged in the
    complaint.”
    DISCUSSION
    ¶11    Article VII, Section 11(3), of the Montana Constitution and § 3-1-1107, MCA,
    allow this Court, upon recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission, to impose
    discipline upon any Montana judge for violation of the Montana Code of Judicial
    Conduct. Section 3-1-1107(1), MCA, provides that this Court shall review the record of
    the proceedings of the Commission and shall make such determination as it finds just and
    proper. This Court may order censure, suspension, removal, or retirement of a judicial
    officer, or it may wholly reject the Commission’s recommendation.
    ¶12    As set forth above, Judge Harada has admitted to violations of M. C. Jud. Cond. R.
    1.2, 2.17(A), 4.1(A)(1), 4.1(A)(3), 4.1(A)(4), 4.1(A)(7), and 4.1(A)(10), including two
    counts of violations for each of M. C. Jud. Cond. R. 4.1(A)(4), 4.1(A)(7), and 4.1(A)(10).
    ¶13    Canon 1 of the Montana Code of Judicial Conduct provides, “A judge shall uphold
    and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid
    impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” Under that Canon, Rule 1.2 states, “A
    judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
    independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and
    appearance of impropriety.” The comments to Rule 1.2 state, in relevant part, that
    6
    improprieties include violations of law. Judge Harada violated the law, and thus Rule
    1.2, when she failed to properly report H.W. as an employee, as alleged by Count VI.
    ¶14    Canon 2 of the Montana Code of Judicial Conduct provides, “A judge shall
    perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.” Under that
    Canon, Rule 2.17(A) states, “A judge shall cooperate and be candid and honest with
    judicial and lawyer disciplinary agencies.” Judge Harada violated this Rule when she
    denied H.W.’s employment status, as alleged by Count VI.
    ¶15    Canon 4 of the Montana Code of Judicial Conduct provides, “A judge or candidate
    for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent
    with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.” Special Prosecutor
    McLean alleged, and Judge Harada admitted to, eight violations of Rule 4.1 under
    Canon 4.
    ¶16    Rule 4.1(A)(3) provides that a judge or judicial candidate shall not “publicly
    endorse or oppose a partisan or independent candidate for any non-judicial public office.”
    Judge Harada violated this Rule when she publicly endorsed two partisan candidates for
    non-judicial offices, as alleged by Count III.
    ¶17    Rule 4.1(A)(4) provides that a judge or judicial candidate shall not “solicit funds
    for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization, or to or on
    behalf of any partisan or independent office-holder or candidate for public office.” We
    agree that Judge Harada, as alleged and admitted to, committed two violations of this
    Rule, first by having on her Facebook page endorsements from two partisan candidates
    7
    and a political organization, as alleged by Count I; and secondly by contributing to a
    partisan candidate, as alleged by Count II.
    ¶18    Rule 4.1(A)(7) provides that a judge or judicial candidate shall not “seek, accept,
    or use endorsements from a political organization, or partisan or independent non-judicial
    office-holder or candidate.” We agree that Judge Harada, as alleged and admitted to,
    committed two violations of this Rule, first by having on her Facebook page
    endorsements from two partisan candidates and a political organization, as set forth in
    Count I; and secondly by endorsing two partisan candidates for non-judicial offices, as
    set forth in Count III.
    ¶19    Rule 4.1(A)(10) provides that a judge or judicial candidate shall not “knowingly,
    or with reckless disregard for the truth, make any false or misleading statement.” We
    agree with the Commission, and as partially admitted by Judge Harada, that Judge
    Harada committed two violations of this Rule, first by attributing to herself two years of
    law experience while she was a law student under the student practice rules, but while not
    recognized as a member of the Montana Bar or admitted to practice by this Court, and by
    giving herself credit for approximately 80 jury trials while she was on inactive status with
    the Montana Bar and which she attended while a law clerk for a federal judge; and
    secondly when, while a candidate for District Judge, she made false and misleading
    statements to the University of Montana School of Law about H.W. to preclude H.W.’s
    admittance because of a personal grievance.
    ¶20    The State has a “compelling interest in preserving public confidence in the
    integrity of the judiciary[.]” Williams-Yulee v. Fla. Bar, 
    575 U.S. 433
    , 444, 
    135 S. Ct. 8
    1656, 1666 (2015). This Court adopted the Code of Judicial Conduct to protect that
    interest. Judge Harada’s admissions of clear and knowing misconduct in this matter
    demonstrate serious violations of that Code and of the public trust in those governed by
    it. They manifest a flagrant disregard and threat to the rule of law and public confidence
    in the independence, impartiality, and integrity of our judicial system.
    ¶21     We give careful deference to the work of the Commission in reviewing cases of
    judicial misconduct. This Court, however, bears ultimate responsibility for determining
    whether the sanction is appropriate under the circumstances, particularly in cases of
    agreed discipline.   Judicial Standards Comm’n of Mont. v. Baugh, 
    2014 MT 149
    ,
    ¶¶ 12-13, 
    375 Mont. 257
    , 
    334 P.3d 352
    .           For the reasons explained, the Court has
    determined that the factual allegations of the Second Amended Complaint and Judge
    Harada’s admissions to those allegations require suspension from judicial duties for a
    period of reflection and re-focus upon the ultimate principles of honesty, respect, and
    decency. Accordingly,
    ¶22     We ACCEPT Judge Harada’s admissions that her actions violated the Code of
    Judicial Conduct and her Acknowledgment and Agreement concerning the complaints
    brought to the Commission. We REJECT the Commission’s recommended form of
    discipline for Judge Harada’s violations.
    ¶23     IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Hon. Ashley Harada is hereby
    SUSPENDED from office without pay for a period of thirty days, commencing May 1,
    2020.
    9
    ¶24    The Clerk of this Court is directed to serve a copy of this Opinion and Order of
    Discipline upon counsel for Hon. Ashley Harada, Ed McLean, Elizabeth Halvorson,
    Jacquelyn Hughes, Karen Jarussi, and Hon. Gregory Todd, and to provide copies to each
    member of the Judicial Standards Commission.
    /S/ MIKE McGRATH
    We Concur:
    /S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
    /S/ BETH BAKER
    /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
    /S/ LAURIE McKINNON
    /S/ JIM RICE
    Justice Ingrid Gustafson did not participate in the consideration of this Opinion and Order
    of Discipline.
    10
    

Document Info

Docket Number: PR 20-0072

Filed Date: 4/17/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2020