A complaint was made by an interest group in an appeal of a same-sex family law matter

20060006 - A complaint was made by an interest group in an appeal of a same-sex family law matter. They believed that the chief justice had a conflict of interest in the case because his daughter was involved in a same-sex union and he therefore had a personal interest in the outcome of the case. They felt that the chief justice should have disclosed his interest and recused himself from the case. There were further allegations that the chief justice picked the other judges to hear the appeal in an effort to advance his personal views. In other words, the complainant alleged that the judge’s personal views and conduct undermined his fundamental obligation to remain impartial.

The matter was closed because no further action was required. The judge had no obligation to disclose his daughter’s sexual orientation and the fact that he failed to do so did not indicate bias or a conflict of interest. True impartiality does not require that a judge have no opinions; it requires that the judge be free to entertain or act upon different points of view with an open mind. There was no basis for the allegation that the judge had assigned particular judges to the appeal panel. Because the complaint involved a member of the Council, the Council’s decision was reviewed by an outside lawyer, who fully endorsed the Council’s reasoning and decision.