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

• On January 24, 2015, during the case of Alfredo Morga, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., et al., Judge Sarah M. Singleton engaged in ex parte communications with the plaintiff's attorney, discussing substantive matters outside the presence of the opposing party or their attorney. This action created an appearance of impropriety and violated several rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Judicial Standards Commission: Argued that Judge Singleton's actions constituted a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct by engaging in impermissible ex parte communications and creating an appearance of impropriety (paras 1-4).
• Respondent (Judge Singleton): Admitted to the ex parte communications and the appearance of impropriety but denied engaging in willful misconduct, malice, corrupt purpose, or dishonesty. Acknowledged that the facts could support a conclusion of bad faith and stipulated that the actions might constitute willful misconduct in office and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct (paras 5-7).

Legal Issues

• Whether Judge Singleton's engagement in ex parte communications and the resulting appearance of impropriety violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.
• Whether Judge Singleton's actions constituted willful misconduct in office.

Disposition

• The Supreme Court granted the petition to accept the stipulation agreement and consent to discipline, resulting in a public censure of Judge Singleton, which is to be published in the New Mexico Bar Bulletin (paras 11-12).

Reasons

• The unanimous decision by Chief Justice Barbara J. Vigil, Justice Petra Jimenez Maes, Justice Edward L. Chávez, Justice Charles W. Daniels, and Justice Judith K. Nakamura concurred that Judge Singleton's actions violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. The decision to accept the stipulation agreement and consent to discipline was based on factors including the isolated nature of the misconduct, its occurrence in an official capacity, the publicized appearance of impropriety, immediate corrective action by Singleton, her remorse and cooperation with the Commission, and her previously unblemished record. The Court determined that accepting the stipulation was in the best interests of the judiciary and the public (paras 8-10, 12).