In Re Honorable Lamdin

RAKER, Judge. The Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities (Commission), acting pursuant to a Petition for Disciplinary Action filed by special investigative counsel, and after a hearing, ⁶³⁴ recommended that respondent, Judge Bruce S. Lamdin, be suspended for a period of thirty days without pay. Respondent was appointed as an Associate Judge of the District Court of Maryland in October, 2002. This is his first disciplinary action and there have been no other disciplinary charges filed against him.

I. Procedural Background The Commission filed charges against respondent stemming from citizen complaints based upon public comments he made in the courtroom. The Commission charged respondent with violation of Canons 1, 1 2A, 3B(4), 3B(5), 6A and 6B of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. Md. Rule 16-813. Canon 1, Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary, reads as follows: “An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society.

A judge shall observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved. The provisions of this Code are to be construed and applied to further that objective.” Canon 2, Avoidance of Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety, in pertinent part, reads as follows: “A. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.” Canon 3, Performance of Judicial Duties, reads, in pertinent part, as follows: “A. GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office diligently, impartially, ⁶³⁵ and without having or manifesting bias or prejudice, including bias or prejudice based on age, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.

B. ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES. (4) A judge shall be dignified. (5) A judge shall be courteous to and patient with jurors, lawyers, litigants, witnesses, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity and shall require similar conduct of lawyers and of court officials, staff, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control.” (emphasis retained).” Canon 6, Compliance, states as follows: “A. COURTS. This Code applies to each judge of the Court of Appeals, the Court of Special Appeals, a circuit court, the District Court, or an orphans’ court.

B. CONSTRUCTION. Violation of any of the Canons by a judge may be regarded as conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice "within the meaning of Maryland Rule 16—803(j), as to the Commission on Judicial Disabilities.... ” The Commission held a hearing on June 18, 2007. On that day, respondent and special investigative counsel submitted to the Commission a stipulated verdict sheet, indicating that respondent admitted that his conduct violated all the charges. Respondent and special investigative counsel filed stipulated proposed findings and proposed sanction, urging that “the Commission find by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Lamdin has committed sanctionable conduct[ 2 ] and issue a Public Reprimand____” ⁶³⁶ At the Commission hearing, respondent appeared with counsel and the Commission was represented by special investigative counsel.

Directed towards mitigation and sanction, respondent testified before the Commission, filed letters from friends, professional associates and colleagues attesting to his good character and intentions and change of attitude, and a letter he wrote personally. The Commission filed an opinion, setting forth findings of fact, conclusions of law and a recommended sanction, finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent violated the Canons of Judicial Conduct, as charged, and thereby committed sanctionable conduct as defined by Maryland Rule 16-803(j). The Commission rejected the parties stipulation for a reprimand and instead recommended that respondent complete a consecutive thirty (30) working day suspension without pay within 90 days of the date of the decision of the Court of Appeals. Neither party excepted to the Commission’s opinion.

Upon receipt of the Commission’s Opinion, this Court set the matter for a hearing. As we have indicated, respondent did not except to the Commission’s findings or conclusions. Instead, he filed a “Waiver of Hearing and Submittal” with this Court, arguing that the Commission’s recommendation was extraordinary and might result in unintended consequences, such as a reduction of benefits. Respondent argued, in addition, that his efforts at remediation warranted the imposition of a lesser sanction.

This Court issued an Order scheduling a hearing for respondent to show cause why the Court should not impose the sanction recommended by the Commission or any other sanction permitted by law. 3 Respondent filed a memorandum in ⁶³⁷ response to the Order, arguing that he had shown remorse and had embarked upon a course of corrective conduct, that he had been subject to “unflattering” portrayals by the news media and the public record of the Commission, that a suspension would increase the burden on other District Court judges, and that the Commission’s consideration of his perceived demeanor at the hearing was improper. Pursuant to Article IV, § 4B(b) of the Maryland Constitution, a judge of any court of this State may be disciplined for an established violation of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. 4 The object of the Canons and the accompanying commentary is to set out, for the judiciary and the public, basic standards for the conduct of all judges and to provide guidance in establishing and maintaining high standards of judicial and personal conduct. Upon our independent review, this Court must determine whether the charges against the respondent are supported by clear and convincing evidence and which, if any, Canons of the Code adopted by this Court have been violated. See In re Diener and Broccolino, 268 Md. 659, 670 , 304 A.2d 587, 594 (1973).

If a violation is found, this Court must then determine what discipline, if any, is appropriate under the circumstances. The decision of this Court shall be evidenced by an Order of the Court, certified under seal and shall be accompanied by a written opinion. Md. Rule 16—809(f).

II

Factual Findings The findings of the Commission have not been challenged before this Court. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the factual determinations set forth in the Commission’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are well supported by the record and have been proven by clear and convincing ⁶³⁸ evidence. The Commission Opinion set forth the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: “FINDINGS OF FACT “A. Judge Lamdin was, at all times applicable to the allegations contained in the Charges, a judge of the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore County, District 08. Therefore, the Respondent was and still is a judicial officer whose conduct was and is subject to the provisions of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct and Maryland Rules 16-803 through 16-810. “B. In the Stipulations of Fact, set forth in Joint Exhibit 1, Tab 2 (‘Stipulations of Fact and Violation’), Judge Lamdin expressly admitted that he made each of the comments attributed to him and that those comments violated specific Canons of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct, all as set forth in the Charges filed on November 30, 2006, in reference to the following cases: complaint filed by Ronald Jacobson; State v. Owens, # DG 10900; State v. Marsalak, # DG 16992; State v. McClaughlin, # C 00240823; State v. Kalp, # C 00239407; State v. Nunyez, # DG 10669; State v. Jennings, # DF 98262; State v. Crook, # C 00239557; State v. Jones, # C 00241933; State v. Santos, # C 00238632; State v. Stockley, # C 00237477; State v. Spirako, # C 00222486; State v. Nestor, # C 00240723, and State v. Holmes, # C 00228211. “C. The following is a listing of those statements and Charges admitted by Judge Lamdin in the Stipulations of Fact and Violation: “1.

As to the complaint filed by Ronald Jacobson, Judge Lamdin admitted that during the course of his opening remarks for the afternoon docket, he made the following comment to the audience regarding a woman leaving the courtroom with her baby who was crying: ‘If she only knew how much I hate kids, she would not have brought that kid in here today.’ ⁶³⁹ “Judge Lamdin further admitted that such comment by him violated Canons 1, 2A, 3A, 3B(4), 3B(5), 6A and 6B of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. “2. As to State v. Owens, # DG 10900, Judge Lamdin admitted that he asked the defendant, Hunter Coleman Owens, from Pennsylvania: ‘What’s the big rush to get back to Pennsylvania? It’s an ugly state.’ “Judge Lamdin further admitted that such comments by him violated Canons 1, 2A, 3A, 3B(4), 3B(5), 6A and 6B of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. “3. As to State v. Marsalak, # DG 16922, Judge Lam-din admitted that, during the course of the case in which defendant entered a not guilty agreed statement of facts to driving while suspended, he asked the defendant: ‘Would you like some cheese with that whine because I’ve heard about all that I wish to hear.’ “Judge Lamdin further admitted that such comments by him violated Canons 1, 2A, 3A, 3B(4), 3B(5), 6A and 6B of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. “4.

As to State v. McClaughlin, # C 00240823, Judge Lamdin admitted, upon being informed by the Assistant State’s Attorney that the defendant had been asked to remain in the hallway with her baby until her case was called, that he stated: ‘Well, you know, I got in trouble because I told some lady we confiscate cell phones and we put the cell phones in plastic bags and send them down to Annapolis. I suggested maybe we ought to do the same thing with children except poke holes in the bag. She filed a complaint against me for that so that’s why they keep all of the children out of my courtroom now ... We ordered some plastic bags about five foot tall but they haven’t been—they haven’t come in yet.’ “Judge Lamdin further admitted that such comments by him violated Canons 1, 2A, 3A, 3B(4), 3B(5), 6A and 6B of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. ⁶⁴⁰ “5.

As to State v. Kalp, # C 00239407, Judge Lamdin admitted that he stated the following to the Defendant during sentencing: ‘Now come on James, let’s be honest with each other. These problems have existed for you for now—now for 14 years. You must be the slowest study known to man. If you haven’t been able to figure out with all of your alcohol related offenses and now your drug arrest that you need to do something to help yourself, come on.

Do you think I just came in on the watermelon track today? ... At Division of Correction they’ll spank him and probably release him in four months. Down there he can get all the drugs he wants probably.’ “Judge Lamdin further admitted that such comments by him violated Canons 1, 2A, 3A, 3B(4), 3B(5), 6A and 6B of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. “6. As to State v. Nunyez, # DG 10669, Judge Lamdin admitted that during the hearing he responded to the defendant’s request for mercy by stating: T don’t have any mercy.

You haven’t heard about me? I am a merciless SOB. You haven’t heard that? I thought everybody knew that.’ “Judge Lamdin further admitted that such comments by him violated Canons 1, 2A, 3B(4), 3B(5), 6A and 6B of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. “7.

As to State v. Jennings, # DF 98262, Judge Lam-din admitted that, angry with the defendant’s attitude, he sent the defendant to lockup and when the case was recalled later in the day, Judge Lamdin asked the defendant’s attorney: ‘Did he get his head out of where he had it inserted earlier today, Mr. Chase?’ “Judge Lamdin further admitted that such comments by him violated Canons 1, 2A, 3B(4), 3B(5), 6A and 6B of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. ⁶⁴¹ “8. As to State v. Crook, # C 00289557, Judge Lam-din, in a case in which defendant entered a guilty plea to possession of paraphernalia and driving without a license, admitted that he made the following comments during the case: ‘Why did you drive so poorly? Smoke a little weed before you got behind the wheel? ... Smoke a little crack before you got behind the wheel? ...

Well, you’ve got the appropriate last name.... All right crack head, Crook.... You’ve got your money all tied up in the next shipment that’s coming in? Never mind....

My comment was, do you have all your money tied up in product?’ “Judge Lamdin further admitted that such comments violated Canon 1, 2A, 3B(4), 3B(5), 6A and 6B of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. “9. As to State v. Jones, # C 00241933, Judge Lamdin, in a case in which defendant entered a not guilty agreed statement of facts to driving while suspended, admitted that he made the following comments during the case: Well Mr. Jones, the hits keep coming. I mean, if there is a pile of shit there you’ll step in it ... Because when you sleep with dogs you generally wake up with fleas and you’ve been scratching the better part of your life....

Date du jour—Going by the bowling alley to pick her up. She’s messed up on drugs and I’m sure you were probably contributing to that.... You gave her money to go cop whatever she’s hooked on ... So he’s just a huge burden to everyone....

So am I doing the tax-payers justice by locking this stupid ass up for additional time or am I just punishing the taxpayers? But is he one of the biggest dumb asses I’ve ever seen? Absolutely.... My guess is, released he will surely step in the next pile of shit with another week or two ... give you an opportunity to find your big pile and step in it again---- I could give some time to get money together to pay a fine, but then I’d punish your children and they are already punished enough by ⁶⁴² having you for a father....

They’re dealing with the bottom of the deck right now____Get your head out of where it has been inserted for the last number of years.’ “Judge Lamdin further admitted that such comments by him violated Canons 1, 2A, 3B(4), 3B(5), 6A and 6B of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. “10. As to State v. Santos, # C 00238632, Judge Lam-din admitted, after the defendant requested that his case be transferred to Circuit Court for a jury trial, that he stated the following: T didn’t even know they had afternoon hours in the Circuit Court____They are usually done by lunchtime and then they take the rest of the day off.’ “Judge Lamdin further admitted that such statement by him violated Canons 1, 2A, 3A, 3B(4), 6A and 6B of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. “11. As to State v. Stockley, # C 00237477, Judge Lamdin admitted, after the defendant’s request for a postponement was denied and defendant prayed a jury trial, that he made the following statements: ‘That’s Judge Turnbull’s new ruling, if it’s after eleven o’clock it’s the next day. They don’t like to overtax themselves up there____After eleven o’clock it’s Judge Turnbull’s new ruling is that jury trials are the next day.’ “Judge Lamdin further admitted that such statement by him violated Canons 1, 2A, 3A, 3B,(4), 6A and 6B of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. “12.

As to State v. Spirako, # C 00222486, Judge Lamdin admitted, in a case in which the defendant had not been brought down from Circuit Court, that he made the following statements: ‘Don’t they come before we do? I know in their own minds they do, certainly----You want me to see if I can prevail on them to bring her down here today? ... I mean, they don’t work in the afternoon up there. ⁶⁴³ Why is she still up there? ... They’re all on their way to have cocktails or something up there at the Circuit Court.

Yeah, they don’t work in the afternoon. Who are they kidding.... She’s in jail in this case? ... I know they’re not working up there this afternoon.

If they are, I’d like to know which judge it is. It’s a shock if it’s anybody other than Judge Cahill.’ “Judge Lamdin further admitted that such statements by him violated Canons 1, 2A, 3A, 3B(4), 6A and 6B of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. “13. As to State v. Nestor, # C 00240723, Judge Lam-din admitted, in a case in which the defendant entered a not guilty agreed statement of facts to malicious destruction of property and the defendant’s mother, the victim of the criminal act, asked the judge to put her son in a drug treatment program, that he made the following comments: T understand your cry for help____My guess is also that at one time you offered in the past to pay for his treatment----You got the wrong Judge today. I am not one of those touchy feely judges that goes for programs where everyone holds hands and sings kum ba ah and then they hand out lollipops to each other and gift certificates.

I don’t believe in that drug court and all that other foolishness____ You know, I don’t feel like it’s the responsibility of the taxpayers to take care of every damn drug addict on the street____So I think jail has a telling effect on some people ... especially if they are young and dumb like your son is ... I probably wasn’t as big an ass as you were all that time either.... If you want to go up there and ask that judge up there, you know they’ve got a lot more of those touchy feely judges up there. You’ll probably find one of them that will do what you are asking me to do.” “Judge Lamdin further admitted that such comments by him violated Canons 1, 2A, 3A, 3B(4), 3B(5), 6A and 6B of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. ⁶⁴⁴ “14.

As to State v. Holmes, # C 00228211, Judge Lamdin admitted, in a case in which defendant entered a not guilty agreed statement of facts to a charge of assignation, and defendant also had a detainer in Baltimore City, that he made the following comments during the case: ‘Who put up your bond money for you, your pimp? ... Business must be good----If I were to release you, you’d be scratching that itch tonight---- Ma’am you can’t bullshit a bullshitter.... You may be able to get some crack down there____Never know about Charm City. Those guards down there provide services for services____I should just let you go to Baltimore City, they’ll give you the key to the city and then send you on your way____They don’t do anything to them for prostitution down in Baltimore City, they give them one of those BELIEVE stickers to put on their backs---They don’t care about prostitution in Baltimore City.

They’ll move her into one of the diversion courts, spank her and send her on her way____You’ve got no big hurdle in Baltimore City. They treat prostitution like spitting on the sidewalk ... and when you get down there you can pray a jury trial and you’re guaranteed to have it dismissed when you go up to the Circuit Court____ They’ll toss that thing in Baltimore City, just pray that jury trial.’ “Judge Lamdin further admitted that such statements by him violated Canons 1, 2A, 3A, 3B(4), 3B(5), 6A and 6B of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. “D. The following are findings of the Commission with regard to Judge Lamdin’s sworn testimony and demeanor at the Hearing: “1. The comments made by Judge Lamdin set forth in the Stipulations of Fact and Violation were undignified, discourteous, and disparaging. “2. During his sworn testimony at the Hearing, Judge Lamdin admitted that his stipulated comments were ⁶⁴⁵ ‘wrong,’ but never indicated any appreciation of exactly what was ‘wrong’ about those comments.

Judge Lamdin did not acknowledge that his comments were, in fact, undignified, discourteous, and disparaging. Judge Lam-din expressed no remorse for his comments; instead, he attempted to justify his comments through explanations and excuses. In response to questions from members of the Commission, Judge Lamdin was generally defensive, sometimes evasive, and, on at least one occasion, arrogant and hostile. “3. Examples of the aforementioned findings are as follows: “a.

In reference to Judge Lamdin’s stipulated comments in State v. Jennings, # DF 98262 (Paragraph 1.C.7, supra), and State v. Crook, # C 00239557 (Paragraph 1.C.8, supra), Judge Shuger asked Judge Lamdin (1) how he thought a litigant would have felt if those comments were made to him or her by a judge during a hearing, and (2) how he would have felt if he had been addressed by a judge in that manner. Initially, Judge Lamdin did not respond to Judge Shuger’s questions. Instead, Judge Lamdin defended his comment in Jennings, concluding: ‘And I think the comment fit the situation quite frankly at the time regarding Mr. Jennings.’ When pressed further for an answer by Judge Shuger, Judge Lamdin responded: ‘Well, in the Jenning’s (sic) case I certainly would have thought I had it coming. Because to be that unconcerned about your fellow man, that leaves something to be desired.

Or fellow woman, in this case.’ “Regarding Crook, Judge Lamdin stated: ‘And in Mr. Crook’s case I was trying to get on a level with him so that he could understand what we were talking about. That he had a problem he hadn’t addressed, because it was getting worse instead of better. His life was spiraling out of control and without some kind of treatment, without approaching his life in a different direction, there were going to be additional victims, additional problems.’ ⁶⁴⁶ ‘And so if someone was trying to shock me back into reality and get me out of the situation I found myself in, I don’t know that I would necessarily be offended.’ “Finally, Judge Lamdin identified one of the reasons for his comments in both cases as ‘at times it was my way of handling people one on one.’ “In his responses to Judge Shuger’s questions, Judge Lamdin gave no indication that