May 21, 2013, Utah Supreme Court Case Summaries

May 21, 2013

Utah Supreme Court Cases

IN RE:THE HONORABLE KEVIN CHRISTENSEN,  2013 UT 30, No. 20120523 (May 21, 2013) 

This judicial discipline proceeding involves the statutory cap on the salaries of justice court judges who are employed by more than one municipality. Following an investigation, the Judicial Conduct Commission (JCC) found that the salary of justice court judge Kevin Christensen exceeded the statutory cap during the years 2009 through 2011, and recommended that he be censured and ordered to repay the excess amounts. We adopt the JCC’s recommendations. 

At ¶ 1.

Under Utah Code section 78A-7-206(1)(e), “[a] justice court judge employed by more than one entity as a justice court judge, may not receive a total salary for service as a justice court judge greater than the salary of a district court judge.” In late 2010, Judge Christensen became aware that his salary exceeded this statutory maximum. He claims to have immediately contacted municipal employers to discuss the problem. However, several months later, his salary had not been reduced. 

At ¶ 2.

The Court reviews the stipulated facts, including a stipulation that Judge Christiansen was paid more than a district court judge from 2009 to 2011.

At ¶¶ 3-4.

Judge Christensen argues that Utah Code section 78A-7- 206(1)(e), the statutory provision he stipulated to having violated, is unconstitutional. We decline to reach this issue because a judge may not properly assert for the first time in a disciplinary proceeding the defense that a law the judge has violated is unconstitutional. After considering the record and the mitigating factors offered by Judge Christensen, we adopt the recommendations of the JCC.

At ¶ 7.

[T]he appropriate standard of behavior for a judge is to observe the law as it exists at the time, and if he seeks to challenge it, to set forth his reasoning in a record of decision in a case before him or to bring an action seeking a declaratory judgment . . . . It cannot be acceptable behavior for a judge to fail to obey the law without at the time providing any reason to believe a constitutional objection motivated the failure, only years later in disciplinary proceedings to unveil a constitutional objection.

In re Anderson, 2004 UT 7, ¶ 66, 82 P.3d 1134

At ¶ 8.

[T]he record and the briefs suggest that only after the JCC issued formal charges against Judge Christensen did he formulate a constitutional justification for his actions. This is unacceptable behavior for a judge.

At ¶ 10.

The Court reviews that facts and states:

Having considered the record and the arguments and having not been persuaded that the mitigating factors offered by Judge Christensen would render the proposed sanctions unjust or improper, we adopt the JCC’s factual findings, legal conclusions, and proposed sanctions. Judge Christensen is censured and ordered to repay the excess salary he received in 2009, 2010, and 2011.

At ¶¶ 11-17.