By JOE STEPHENS - Staff Writer
Date: 04/04/98 22:30
Congress had a simple idea in mind two decades ago when it enacted strict new ethics laws:
No one should be a judge in his own dispute.
So Congress set an exacting standard. A judge, it said, must pull out of a lawsuit when he knows he has a financial interest "in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding."
In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in. It ruled that a judge must step aside even when no reasonable person would conclude that the investment could affect his judgment.
Federal law, the court said, "requires disqualification no matter how insubstantial the financial interest and regardless of whether or not the interest actually creates an appearance of impropriety."
Appeals courts and ethics committees have ruled the same way in case after case, noting that judges must withdraw even when no one objects and when doing so "would involve great inconvenience."
The only other option: Sell the stock.
In one often-cited case, a judge was presiding over a complex class-action lawsuit involving thousands of companies when he discovered that his wife had an interest in the dispute worth less than $30. A federal appeals court ruled that the judge had to withdraw.
"Thus," the court wrote, "after five years of litigation, a multimillion-dollar lawsuit of major national importance, with over 200,000 class plaintiffs, grinds to a halt over ... $29.70."
And just in case a judge claims ignorance of what he owns, the law flatly states: "A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary interests." Failure to do so, the Supreme Court has held, may constitute a separate violation of ethics laws.
Peter W. Rodino Jr. was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 and helped craft the ethics statutes. He describes them as common sense.
"Public service is a public trust," Rodino explained in an interview last month. "We've got to have full trust."
That is why Rodino and his colleagues provided judges with a clear formula for determining when they must disqualify themselves. The legislators did not want anyone questioning when the rule applied.
"So there is no argument upon which reasonable people could differ, Congress chose to draw a bright line," explained Stephen Gillers, a judicial ethicist at New York University who has worked as a White House consultant.
"What the Congress did was simply not leave room for discretion. Congress decided it's better to err on the side of recusal when a judge has a financial interest in a party, rather than split hairs about whether the judge's financial interest is likely to be decreased or increased, depending on the result of the case."
And if the rule seems severe, that's as it should be, said Steven Lubet, a judicial ethicist at Northwestern University in Chicago.
"It's supposed to be picky," he said, "because judging is important."
The rules also recognize the uncommon influence commanded by members of the bench.
Judicial authority is not hamstrung by politics or limited by the need to reach consensus. The clout wielded by Kansas City Mayor Emanuel Cleaver pales beside that of U.S. District Judge Russell G. Clark, who took control of Kansas City public schools and ordered a property tax increase. Or that of Judge Dean Whipple, who seized the Kansas City Housing Authority.
Unlike senators and presidents, federal judges are guaranteed their jobs for life. Even if they retire or are convicted of a felony, federal law gives them the right to receive their full salary until death.
"A federal district court judge in many ways is the most powerful individual in our governmental system, excepting the president," said James C. Turner, a Washington lawyer and legal reformer.
In return for that power, ethics canons demand that the nation's 585 district judges be not only incorruptible but also above even the appearance of impropriety. Actions and conflicts common among elected officials are expressly illegal for federal judges.
Congress enacted those prohibitions in a flood of post-Watergate reforms. And in particular, Rodino recalled, they were prompted by Clement Haynsworth.
Richard Nixon nominated the appellate judge to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969. Soon, scandal erupted over Haynsworth's business dealings.
Two civil cases in which Haynsworth took part, it turned out, involved subsidiaries of companies in which he owned a few thousands dollars in stock. One of the cases was a personal injury lawsuit that resulted in an award of just $50.
Although no one charged Haynsworth with making money off his rulings, U.S. senators cited the conflicts as the reason for his rejection. Some critics even called for him to resign from the federal appeals court.
Tom Eagleton, then a senator from Missouri, lambasted Haynsworth in a nationally televised debate.
"It's fundamental that a judge is prohibited from sitting on a case when he has stock ownership in one of the parties," Eagleton said. "That in itself disqualifies him from being considered for the court."