Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

287 S.C. 594

In re Maxwell

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided February 18, 1986

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1986-02-18

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1996

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[w]e find that the conduct of the respondent while serving as a magistrate for Dorchester County, South Carolina, constitutes violations of Canons 1 and 2(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. We further note that the judicial misconduct of respondent would have justified his removal from office had he not voluntarily resigned prior to the institution of these proceedings.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Matter of Ferguson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-02-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam:

¶1*595This is a judicial disciplinary matter before this Court as a result of findings by the Board of Commissioners on Judicial Standards. These findings were agreed to in writing by the respondent and witnessed by his attorney. We accept the recommendations of the Board of Commissioners on Judicial Standards and impose upon the respondent a public reprimand.

¶2The record sustains the following findings:

1. That respondent was, between September 17,1982, and March 11, 1985, a judge within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Rule on Judicial Discipline and Standards, Rule 34 of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, and was a judicial officer of the state of South Carolina, viz., a magistrate in and for the county of Dorchester, state of South Carolina.
2. That respondent was found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in August, 1984.
3. That respondent was found guilty in Magistrate Court on October 28, 1984 of receiving stolen goods.
4. That respondent was found guilty in Magistrate Court on February 20, 1985 of receiving stolen goods.

¶3We find that the conduct of the respondent while serving as a magistrate for Dorchester County, South Carolina, constitutes violations of Canons 1 and 2(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.. We further note that the judicial misconduct of respondent would have justified his removal from office had not he voluntarily resigned prior to the institution of these proceedings.

¶4Finally, we would note that the sanction recommended by the Board of Commissioners on Judicial Standards and adopted by this Court is the most severe available under the circumstances of this controversy.

¶5Therefore, it is ordered that the respondent stands publicly reprimanded for judicial misconduct.

¶6Public reprimand.

/287/sc/594 · .json · Public domain