AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves Hon. Albert J. Mitchell, Jr., who met privately with County Manager Richard Primrose after a Quay County Commissioners meeting on January 8, 2018. During this meeting, Mitchell expressed displeasure with the Commissioners' vote on courthouse security and made statements suggesting he could influence the Governor to veto capital outlay funds for Quay County or have a legislator pass a law to secure the courthouse as he deemed necessary. These actions were suggestive of a threat to ensure the implementation of specific court security measures.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent: Admitted to meeting privately with the County Manager and expressing displeasure with the Commissioners' vote on courthouse security. Denied engaging in willful misconduct regarding political influence but did not contest the evidence that could prove the conduct occurred as described in the stipulation agreement.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Respondent's conduct at the private meeting on January 8, 2018, constituted a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to be patient, dignified, and courteous, creating an appearance of impropriety, and potentially abusing the prestige of judicial office.

Disposition

• The petition to accept the stipulation agreement and consent to discipline is granted, resulting in a public censure of Hon. Albert J. Mitchell, Jr.

Reasons

• Per Chief Justice Judith K. Nakamura, Justice Barbara J. Vigil, Justice Michael E. Vigil, Justice C. Shannon Bacon, and Justice David K. Thomson concurring: The decision to issue a public censure was based on the stipulation agreement where Mitchell acknowledged the facts supported a conclusion of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct. The actions were deemed a failure to be patient, dignified, and courteous, created an appearance of impropriety, and could be perceived as an abuse of the prestige of judicial office, reflecting negatively on the judiciary's independence, integrity, impartiality, and respect. The acceptance of the stipulation agreement and consent to discipline was determined to be in the best interests of the judiciary and the public.