Judicial conduct panel to face Mass. high court

The state's highest court is embroiled in a power struggle with the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct, summoning panel members this week to defend their authority to suspend a Plymouth County judge for a year without pay and fine him $50,000 for sexually harassing two female court employees.

In November, Plymouth Juvenile Court Judge Robert F. Murray agreed to one of the commission's harshest disciplinary actions ever, which also barred him from sitting in any Plymouth court.

The Supreme Judicial Court said in a written order to the commission that state law allows the panel to hand down some punishments without court approval if judges consent to the discipline. But the court questioned whether the commission must get the high court's approval for penalties as harsh as Murray's.

The commission countered in court papers that it had the power to act as it did, and that the court has ''never called into question or limited in any way the ability of a judge" to reach a settlement similar to the one it did with Murray. Gillian E. Pearson, executive director of the commission and an employee there for 18 years, said yesterday that she was baffled by the high court's stance.

Regardless of the outcome of the hearing, Murray's punishment is expected to stand, according to officials for the court and the commission.

Still, the confrontation exposes a fundamental rift between the court and the commission -- one that could have far-reaching consequences on how Massachusetts disciplines judges, according to lawyers who have represented members of the bench accused of misbehavior.

By law, the court oversees the nine-member commission and appoints three of its members. The commission, which the legislature created in 1978, reports to the court on budgetary matters and on some of its functions, but is supposed to have independent authority. Indeed, it recently investigated a complaint against the court's chief justice.

Joan Kenney, a court spokeswoman, said the hearing tomorrow marks the first time the seven justices have ordered commission officials to appear before them.

What the court appears to be saying is that the commission's authority ''to sanction a judge is limited to a very narrow set of circumstances," said Michael E. Mone, a Boston lawyer who represented Murray in the disciplinary action and has defended about 10 judges accused of misconduct. Mone wrote a letter to the court defending the commission's authority to act as it did.

Margaret H. Marshall, chief justice of the high court, said in an April 3 letter to the commission that Murray's name was listed previously as a party in the upcoming hearing by mistake, and that he is not the focus of the proceeding.

Although Murray's punishment prompted the hearing, Kenney said, the proceeding is expected to address the broader issue of who has ultimate power to punish judges, the court or the commission.

The commission resolved a confidential complaint about Marshall last December over a joke she made at the beginning of her commencement speech at Brandeis University in May. Marshall, who had quipped to spectators gathered beneath blue and white balloons, ''No red states here," publicly apologized for making what might have been construed as a political statement. The commission released the apology.

Murray admitted to more serious misconduct. On Nov. 28, the commission announced it suspended Murray, who had been the first justice of the Plymouth County juvenile courts and had been on paid leave for almost a year.

Plymouth court employees said he made inappropriate phone calls to a court clerk, Michelle Goldberg, and gave a court officer, Barbara Brawders, an unwanted kiss. Murray had settled harassment claims with the women for a total of $250,000 previously.

The one-year suspension was believed to be the longest issued by the commission, and the fine one of the largest. Under the terms of the settlement, Murray was required to participate in ''appropriate treatment and [to] . . . be monitored" by the commission.

Allowing the commission to settle such complaints saves the state and errant judges thousands of dollars in legal fees and avoids hearings that can last years, commission officials wrote the court.

The commission said it relied on a section of state law that said the commission may settle complaints informally anytime by ''imposing conditions on the judge's conduct." The commission cited seven cases since 1990 similar to the settlement with Murray.

In those cases, judges agreed to unpaid suspensions of up to three months and to fines of up to $20,000, made public apologies, or promised not to sit on certain kinds of cases. However, the high court contends that state law only authorizes the commission to recommend ''more serious sanctions" to the court, which then has the last word.

Jonathan Saltzman can be reached at jsaltzman@globe.com