Summary
A dismissed judicial officer sought reduction of punishment after findings that his relationship with an advocate influenced orders favouring her clients had become final. The Court held that gratification under the disciplinary rule was not confined to money. Deciding cases for such extraneous reasons violated the integrity and impartiality required of judicial office. No lesser punishment was justified.
Issues
- Whether dismissal should be reduced where judicial decisions were influenced by an extraneous personal relationship.
- Whether gratification under the disciplinary rule was confined to monetary benefits.
Held
- The appeal was confined to quantum of punishment; the established misconduct findings were not reopened. (¶¶ 2, 5)
- Judicial office requires integrity in public and personal conduct and decisions based solely on the record and applicable law. Extraneous influence is incompatible with that duty. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
- Gratification is not confined to money. The established relationship influencing judicial orders constituted gratification of another kind under the rule, and the misconduct warranted no leniency. (¶¶ 3, 11, 12)
Result
The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of dismissal from service upheld.