Rockingham Superior Court Judge Patricia Coffey was recently accused of sleeping during a sexual abuse case. Coffey has denied the allegation, but others who have been in her court at various times in the past few years have stepped forward with similar stories.
Coffey’s case is just one example of the battles New Hampshire residents are fighting to keep the judiciary accountable to the public.

Rockingham Superior Court Judge Patricia Coffey was recently accused of sleeping during a sexual abuse case. Coffey has denied the allegation, but others who have been in her court at various times in the past few years have stepped forward with similar stories.

Coffey’s case is just one example of the battles New Hampshire residents are fighting to keep the judiciary accountable to the public.

Ralph Holder is intimately familiar with the labyrinthine process that accompanies filing judicial complaints. During a contentious custody battle with his ex-wife in 2002, Holder claims that court officers, including the marital master and the guardian ad litem who worked on his case, used race as a determining factor in the custody proceedings involving his 9-year-old son.

Holder, who is African American, went through divorce proceedings in the Brentwood Family Court in 2003. According to documents provided by Holder, when determining who should be awarded custody of his son, marital master Harriet Fishman ruled his son should live with his mother in Haverhill, Mass., because he would be “lonely” as the only African American student in Newton, N.H., where Holder lives.

“It’s intentional, court-ordered segregation,” Holder said.

Holder filed complaints against Fishman, guardian ad litem Patricia Frim and Judge Gerald Taube over the ruling. However, the complaints, filed with the state Superior Court and the Judicial Conduct Committee, an independent commission that operates under the umbrella of the state’s judicial branch that handles judicial complaints, were either dismissed or went unanswered.

“I have no idea what happened to the complaints,” Holder said. Once the JCC dismissed his complaint, Holder said he had no further recourse, since there is no outside body that oversees the JCC.

This lack of response led holder to hold a one-man protest in front of Portsmouth District Court one morning last October, a last-ditch effort to bring his case to the people. Standing alone on a patch of grass in front of the court, Holder brandished signs calling for the dismissal of marital master Fishman.
Now, months later, Holder says he’s preparing to file a federal discrimination lawsuit against the state.

“I think in this state, the judiciary has enacted rules to protect itself from scrutiny from the public,” he said in a recent phone interview. There are also questions about fairness and the impartiality of the discipline system for attorneys and judges, according to Holder.

Coffey’s accuser also filed a complaint with the Judicial Conduct Committee. Any complaint filed with the organization must first pass through Anthony McManus, a Dover attorney and executive secretary of the JCC, who summarizes each complaint and submits copies to each of the committees 11 members.

According to McManus, most of the complaints are dismissed right away, usually because they contain no supporting evidence.

McManus may be asked by the JCC to review court files or listen to recordings of the hearing in question to see if there are further grounds for the complaint. Following that, the JCC will review all the material, and, if the complaint is not dismissed, there would be a formal, public hearing during which the judge would be asked to respond.

The JCC is independent from the rest of the judicial branch and receives its funding from an appropriation from the Legislature, according to Laura Kiernan, spokesperson for the state’s court system. The committee’s membership is made up of three judges, one lawyer and one clerk of court, all of whom are appointed by the Supreme Court; two members are appointed by the New Hampshire Bar Association; two members by the governor; and one member each by the Senate president and the Speaker of the House.

Rep. Richard Marple (R-Hooksett) contends that the JCC isn’t independent, though, because the Supreme Court appoints some of its members.

Marple also takes issue with the New Hampshire Bar Association, which he says is not a publicly accountable organization. He’s the primary sponsor of HB 541, legislation that would repeal the charter of the NHBA.

“(The JCC) cannot be independent,” he said. “They’re judging their own and they can’t.” Marple added that because the there’s no body overseeing the JCC, it’s not accountable to the people.

The JCC received 66 complaints in 2005, none of which resulted in a full hearing, according to McManus. Most are dismissed immediately, he said.

“Most of the complaints that come in are based on a person being unhappy with the outcome (of a trial),” he said. “They say, ‘I think the judge made a mistake and I’m looking for the committee to do something about it.’”

McManus said that, for the most part, people understand where and how to file a complaint.

A poll conducted in August 2005 by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center backs McManus’ statements. The poll, conducted on behalf of the New Hampshire Citizen’s Commission on State Courts, found that 48 percent of respondents said “people always or usually receive fair outcomes when they deal with the courts.” Six percent of those surveyed said people seldom or never receive fair outcomes when dealing with New Hampshire courts.

However, McManus said there’s a process in place that reviews judges and marital masters every three years.

“The administrative judge of each level of the court does a review of the judge and there’s a questionnaire that is circulated among lawyers and litigants and people who have any contact with the court,” he said.

McManus believes the state’s judicial complaint process works well.

“New Hampshire has the most open discipline process of any state in the country,” he said. “The files become public once the committee’s review is completed and anybody can ask to look at a file and see what’s happened on it.”

In 2002, the committee reviewed 48 grievances. In 2003, 58 complaints were reviewed and in 2004, 51 complaints were filed with the committee. Most of those complaints were dismissed. Of the handful of complaints that remained, most resulted in the judge in question receiving a formal reprimand from the committee. Only one case in 2004, concerning complaints of a judge’s sexual misconduct at a public conference, resulted in formal charges.

As for Judge Coffey, the JCC has asked for a response from Coffey regarding the allegations by Jan. 26. McManus said the JCC will decide what further action to take at its next meeting, on Feb. 17.