Could Connecticut’s Judicial Review Council investigate misconduct without a signed complaint?

Plain-English summary

The Judicial Review Council asked in 2005 whether it needed a formal, notarized complaint before it could investigate a judge's conduct. The AG said it could begin an inquiry on its own when it had reason to believe conduct described in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-51i had occurred. A pattern shown by previous complaints could also supply the statutory basis.

The source of information was not decisive. The AG said even an anonymous complaint or information discovered by the council could support an inquiry if it gave the council the required reason to believe misconduct occurred.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Judicial Review Council at the time

The opinion distinguished the duty to investigate written complaints from the separate authority to initiate an investigation. The council could act independently when one of the two conditions in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-51l was met, using that statute's procedures.

Judges and complainants at the time

The AG did not say every anonymous tip required an investigation. He conditioned the council's own initiative on reason to believe that statutory misconduct occurred, or a qualifying pattern from earlier complaints.

Common questions

Q: Was a notarized complaint required before the council could investigate?
A: No. The AG said the council could start an investigation on its own under the statutory conditions.

Q: Could an anonymous report trigger an investigation?
A: It could supply information, but the council still needed reason to believe conduct listed in the judicial misconduct statute had occurred.

Q: Could previous complaints matter even without a new formal complaint?
A: Yes. The statute also allowed an investigation when past complaints showed a pattern leading to a reasonable belief of misconduct.

Background and statutory framework

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-51l directed the council to investigate written complaints and separately authorized council initiated inquiries. The AG read its reference to misconduct under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-51i as limiting the subject and threshold of those inquiries. For procedural details he referred the council to the statute itself.

Citations and references

Statutes cited in the opinion: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-51l; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-51i.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/2005-formal-opinions/donald-a-browne-esq-executive-director-judicial-review-council-2005008-formal-opinion-attorney-gener

Original opinion text

Donald A. Browne, Esq., Executive Director, Judicial Review Council, 2005-008 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

March 14, 2005

Donald A. Browne, Esq.

Executive Director

Judicial Review Council

505 Hudson Street, P.O. Box 260099

Hartford, CT 06126-0099

Dear Mr. Browne:

This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion concerning the authority of the Judicial Review Council (the "Council") to initiate investigations into judicial conduct. Specifically, you question whether the Council "may proceed to independently initiate an investigation based on information discovered by the Council." Such information might "include an anonymous complaint or other information which becomes known to the Council, other than through a notarized complaint." If the Council may initiate an investigation based on such information, you question what the applicable procedures are.

As discussed below, we conclude that the Council is statutorily authorized by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-51l to initiate an investigation into the conduct of a judge in the absence of a specific complaint, if: (1) it has reason to believe that any one of eight possible grounds for removal, suspension or censure set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-51i may have occurred; or (2) previous complaints indicate a pattern of behavior that would lead to a reasonable belief that the conduct described in section 51-51i has occurred. The procedure for such an investigation is set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-51l.

The statutes that govern the establishment and authority of the Judicial Review Council are set forth at Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 51-51k through 51-51u. Section 51-51l, which is entitled "Investigation of conduct of judge, compensation commissioner or family support magistrate," is directly relevant to your question. In pertinent part, § 51-51l states:

Except as provided in subsection (d),1 the Judicial Review Council shall investigate every written complaint brought before it alleging conduct under section 51-51i, and may initiate an investigation of any judge, compensation commissioner or family support magistrate if (1) the council has reason to believe conduct under section 51-51i has occurred or (2) previous complaints indicate a pattern of behavior which would lead to a reasonable belief that conduct under section 51-51i has occurred.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-51l(a)(footnote inserted). The "conduct under section 51-51i" to which § 51-51l refers consists of eight categories of behavior that constitute grounds for removal, suspension and censure. These categories are:

(1) conduct prejudicial to the impartial and effective administration of justice which brings the judicial office in disrepute; (2) wilful violation of section 51-39a or any canon of judicial ethics; (3) wilful and persistent failure to perform the duty of a judge; (4) neglectful or incompetent performance of the duties of a judge; (5) final conviction of a felony or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; (6) disbarment or suspension as an attorney-at-law; (7) wilful failure to file a financial statement or the filing of a fraudulent financial statement required under section 51-46a, or (8) temperament which adversely affects the orderly carriage of justice.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-51i.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has instructed that:

When construing a statute, we first look to its text, as directed by Public Acts 2003, No. 03-154, § 1 (P.A. 03-154), which provides: "The meaning of a statute shall, in the first instance, be ascertained from the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered."

Teresa T. v. Ragalia, 272 Conn. 734, 742 (2005).

In the present case, the text of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-51l is clear and unambiguous. Specifically, the first line of the statute authorizes the Council to conduct investigations in the following three situations:

(1) when the Council receives a "written complaint" alleging any of the eight types of misconduct set forth in § 51-51i;
(2) when the Council "has reason to believe conduct under section 51-51i has occurred;" and

(3) when "previous complaints indicate a pattern of behavior which would lead to a reasonable belief that conduct under section 51-51i has occurred."

In the second situation, which is directly relevant to your question, the statute does not require the prior receipt of a complaint, but rather authorizes the Council to initiate an investigation, sua sponte, if it has reason to believe that conduct under section 51-51i has occurred. That no specific complaint is required is further confirmed by the second sentence of Section 51-51l (a), which refers to procedures to be followed after the "initiation of an investigation or receipt of such complaint," thereby indicating that the initiation of an investigation is distinct from, and need not include, the receipt of a complaint. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-51l(a)(emphasis added).

Accordingly, based on the unambiguous text of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-51l, we conclude that the Judicial Review Council is authorized to independently initiate an investigation based on information discovered by the Council, including information obtained through an anonymous complaint or any other source, provided the information gives the Council reason to believe that conduct set forth in § 51-51i has occurred. The procedures for such an investigation are clearly set forth in detail in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-51l and we therefore refer you to the text of the statute rather than reiterating those procedures here.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Jane R. Rosenberg

Assistant Attorney General

1Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-51l, subsection (d), is a statute of limitations provision that requires complaints to be brought within one year of the date when the alleged conduct, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have been discovered. The subsection further states that in no case may a complaint be brought more than three years from the date when the alleged conduct actually occurred.