By Michael Howell
Charges of professional misconduct were filed on July 15, 2016 before the Commission on Practice of the Supreme Court of Montana against Ravalli County judicial candidate Robert Myers. Leave was granted by the Commission on Practice on July 14, 2016 to Deputy Disciplinary Counsel Jon Moog to file the charges against Myers.
Myers attempted to get a preliminary injunction in federal court to stop Moog’s investigation and prevent the filing of charges against him, but U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy denied that request in a ruling issued on June 28. He found, among other things, that Myers’ claims that certain rules of judicial conduct were unconstitutional were not likely to survive the court’s scrutiny.
The current charges filed by Moog are primarily based upon a radio ad run by Myers and Myers’ published response to the allegations. Myers ran a radio ad beginning June 1 and running for five weeks in his campaign against Judge Jeffrey Langton in which the voice of Dan Cox states that he “caught Judge Langton committing fraud on the court” by “secretly communicating with attorneys for adverse parties.” He also claims that he was denied a chance to respond and prevented from fully representing himself.
Moog notes that Myers was personally sanctioned by Judge Langton in the Cox case for making legally and factually unsupported arguments on behalf of Cox in post judgment proceedings. A motion to have Judge Langton disqualified was denied by the Montana Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also affirmed the $10,000 fine that Langton imposed.
Moog argues that the District Court ruling and the appellate record establish that Cox was provided both notice and a right to be heard in all aspects of the proceedings. He argues that the district court and appellate record also establish that Judge Langton did not have ex parte contact with adverse counsel. It also establishes that Cox was not prevented from fully representing his case and that Judge Langton did not commit fraud on the court or otherwise engage in corruption. He argues that Langton did not retaliate against Myers, but simply reported Myers’ sanctioned conduct to the ODC “pursuant to his mandatory reporting obligation.”
Moog notes that on April 30, 2016, Myers provided a written statement to the press in response to ODC’s formal Complaint.
“In that statement, Respondent (Myers) stated that Judge Langton was ‘caught engaging in secret communications with an opposing party,’ abused his position of power, and judged his own actions. In reality, however, Dan Cox was simply a losing litigant in a child custody matter, as established by district court and appellate record, rendering Respondent’s statements false,” wrote Moog. He accuses Myers of violating the law “as he made, or caused to be made, statements that he knew to be false, or with reckless disregard for the truth, concerning the integrity of a judge. He also accuses Myers of violating the law by engaging “in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”
In a second count, Moog alleges that because Myers is a judicial candidate, he is also in violation of some provisions of the Montana Code of Judicial Conduct. Moog submits a long list of rules of conduct that he believes Myers violated.
The rules:
• Prohibit candidates from knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, making a false statement.
• Require a candidate to take reasonable measures to ensure that other persons do not undertake, on behalf of the candidate, any activity prohibited…
• Require candidates to be scrupulously fair and accurate in all statements made by them and by their campaign committees.
• Require a candidate to review and approve the content of all campaign statements and materials before their dissemination.
• Require a candidate to take objectively reasonable measures to ensure that other persons do not undertake on behalf of the candidate any prohibited activities.
Moog alleges that Myers, “by making, or causing to be made, objectively false statements during his campaign,” Myers has violated these judicial canons. He asks that a citation be issued requiring a written response by Myers within 20 days. A formal hearing on the allegations of the complaint was requested before the Adjudicatory Panel of the Commission. He asked the panel to make a report of its findings and recommendations after a formal hearing to the Montana Supreme Court. In the event the Adjudicatory Panel finds the facts warrant disciplinary action and recommends discipline, he asks that the commission also recommend the nature and extent of “appropriate disciplinary action.”