The "gag rule"

stopping citizens from publically discussing the

decision-making process led to an "F" in transparency.

By Michael Van Cassell

mcassell@wyomingnews.com

CHEYENNE - In a nationwide review of state judicial accountability systems, Wyoming received a 'D' grade and was ranked 45th out of 51.

Wyoming received poor grades in transparency, gift restrictions and consumer friendliness of its judicial oversight from a nonprofit organization called HALT. The Cowboy State scored well in online outreach and public participation.

Help Abolish Legal Tyranny said it works to expand access and increase accountability in the civil justice system. The organization called its review - which grades state judicial oversight - the first comprehensive such study in the nation and included Washington, D.C.

Suzanne M. Blonder, a HALT senior attorney, said the grades reflect state rules governing judicial discipline, not the disciplinary commissions themselves.

"We understand that they are bound by the rules," Blonder said.

The review used seven different categories - transparency, availability of meaningful sanctions, consumer friendliness (preventing anyone from disclosing the existence of a complaint against a judge), online outreach, public participation, financial disclosure and gift restrictions - in assessing judicial oversight.

No state received an 'A,' and Wyoming was one of 14 jurisdictions to receive a 'D' grade. More than half of the states received 'C' grades.

Two states - Mississippi and Maine - received 'F' grades. Three states - Washington, Pennsylvania and Connecticut - received 'B' grades.

HALT commended Wyoming for its online outreach and public participation because a variety of information about judicial complaints and disciplinary rules is offered on court Web sites.

And Wyoming is one of a few states that allow ordinary citizens to sit on its judicial disciplinary commission.

"That's something which we applaud Wyoming for," Blonder said. Half of the 12 Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics members are laypersons.

Blonder said the organization's primary concerns with judicial oversight in Wyoming were lack of transparency and a "gag rule" that prevents citizens from speaking about the judicial discipline decision-making process.

"Wyoming is one of the only states in the country that is actually threatening individuals with contempt if they disclose any misconduct proceedings against a judge," Blonder said.

In Wyoming, complaints against judges are only made public when a disciplinary recommendation is filed, she said.

Once a complaint is determined to be legitimate, it should be disclosed, Blonder contended.

"At that point, the information should really be a matter of public record," she said.

HALT gave Wyoming an 'F' grade for its transparency in judicial accountability.

Bruce Moats, a Cheyenne-based attorney, said there can be a negative perception - albeit an unfair one - of the legal profession.

Making the disciplinary process more transparent could help combat that perception, he said.

"The secrecy actually promotes public suspicion and the perceived negative image of the legal profession," Moats said.

Gay Woodhouse, a Cheyenne attorney and president of the state's bar association, said she feels Wyoming has a good system in place. Woodhouse said there are many valid reasons for not disclosing that a complaint has been filed.

"It can affect all of the cases that are pending before the judge if they have a complaint that's unfounded," Woodhouse said. In many cases, the judge did what is required by law, Woodhouse said.

Retired Laramie County District Judge Nicholas G. Kalokathis said many of the complaints received against judges were misplaced. He called many of the complaints "sour grapes" from litigants who lost their case and were mad at the judge.

"So often, when I sat on the commission, we would receive complaints that were scurrilous and hateful," Kalokathis said.