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. Mary W. Rosner, a district court judge, who was involved in a domestic matter concerning the custody of a minor child, known as the Soto matter. During the proceedings, Judge Rosner appointed Dr. Harold Smith as the parenting coordinator to assist in modifying or developing a new parenting plan. Years later, the father's new counsel filed motions to recuse Judge Rosner and to remove Dr. Smith, alleging lack of qualifications and bias. Subsequently, an article criticizing Judge Rosner and the appointment of Dr. Smith was published. Judge Rosner, feeling personally attacked but believing she could remain impartial, continued to preside over the case, including the motions for her recusal and the removal of Dr. Smith. After a hearing, she denied both motions but later recused herself following a renewed motion to recuse by the father's counsel (paras 3-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Father's Counsel: Argued for Judge Rosner's recusal due to perceived bias and for the removal of Dr. Smith as the parenting coordinator, alleging lack of qualifications (paras 4-5).
• [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether Judge Rosner should have recused herself from the Soto matter following the publication of a critical article and the filing of motions alleging bias and lack of qualifications in the appointed parenting coordinator (para 7).

Disposition

• Judge Rosner is publicly censured for her willful misconduct in failing to recuse herself in a timely manner from the Soto matter, thereby violating several Rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct (para 22).

Reasons

• Justices C. Shannon Bacon, Michael E. Vigil, David K. Thomson, Julie J. Vargas, and Briana H. Zamora participated in the decision. The Court found that Judge Rosner's conduct, including her failure to recuse herself promptly and her use of a court order to respond to public criticism, violated several Rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct. These violations included failing to uphold impartiality and fairness, allowing external influences on judicial conduct, and making statements on pending cases that could affect their outcome. Despite acknowledging the challenges faced by judges, the Court emphasized the importance of maintaining impartiality and avoiding the appearance of impropriety. Mitigating factors, such as Judge Rosner's long-standing service and lack of prior complaints, were considered in deciding the degree of discipline, leading to the imposition of a public censure (paras 9-21).