Barfing Breakfast with the Judge (Clancy Jayne)

So, if you read our previous post, you leaned that somehow, the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct investigated Justice of the Peace Clancy Jayne for his unethical political ad.

Click on the image to the right for a larger image of the original. It's Case No. 11-155.  Here's the text.

The Commission received information about Justice of the Peace Clancy Jayne's activities and opened its own investigation. The investigation raised three areas of concern, which resulted in three distinct resolutions. The first and second areas, as described below, resulted in dismissals with private comments. Because of those areas are so closely intertwined with the third area, which resulted in a public sanction, the commission finds pursuant to commission Rule 9(c) that the disclosure of otherwise confidential information in this order is necessary to protect the administration of justice. The private comments to Judge Jayne will, however, remain confidential pursuant to commission Rule 9(a).

First, the judges "Breakfast with the Judge" series raised concerns pursuant to Rules 1.2, 3.1(C) and 4.2(A)(3) of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct. The Commission determined that these concerns should be addressed through a private, strongly worded warning letter and thus dismissed the concerns pursuant to Rule 16(b).

Second, the judges personal website includes a list of "local resources" that references only one political party, potentially suggesting Judge Jayne may be subject to political influence. Further, the web site includes a reference to the judges private financial consulting work, which is a potential violation of Rule 1.3. The commission determined that these concerns should be addressed to a private advisory comment and thus dismissed the concerns pursuant to Rule 16(b).

Third, Judge Jayne's personal website contains an advertisement for his wedding services, which is a clear and direct violation of Rule 3.16(C). Because the judge received an advisory letter when he previously included a wedding servers advertisement on his website, the Commission determined that this clear violation warranted a public reprimand.

Accordingly, the judges here by reprimanded for his conduct pursuant to Rule 17(a), and the record in this case, consisting of the judge's response in this order, shall be made public as required by Rule (a). While the record would normally include the complaint, no complaint was filed in this none is publicly available.

 We have to report all this to you because the Commission's Custom search page for judicial complaints seems permanently broken. (Going on a couple years now. Judges hate it and judges run the Commission.)

Again, you can read the whole thing from the Commission's website for complaint 11-115 (2011 listing).