In re Killen

250 N.J. 546

274 A.3d 610 (Mem)

In the MATTER OF Guy W. KILLEN, A Judge of the Municipal Court

D-50 September Term 2021

086521

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

May 16, 2022

ORDER

This matter having been submitted to the Court by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct pursuant to Rule 2:12-15A(b), following the granting by the Committee of an application for discipline by consent in ACJC 2021-020 of Guy W. Killen, who was a Judge of the Municipal Courts of the City of Vineland and the Township of West Deptford;

And Disciplinary Counsel/Presenter and Respondent having entered into a stipulation of discipline by consent in which it was agreed that Respondent violated Canon 1, Rule 1.1 (requiring jurists to observe high standards of conduct to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary), and Rule 1.2 (requiring jurists to respect to comply with the law); Canon 2, Rule 2.1 (requiring jurists to promote public confidence by avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety), Rule 2.2 (requiring jurists to decide cases according to the law and facts, and not permit personal relationships or other interests to influence their judicial conduct or judgment), and Rule 2.3 (A) (prohibiting jurists from using the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others); Canon 3, Rule 3.6 (C) (requiring jurists to be impartial and refrain from manifesting by words or conduct, bias or prejudice in the performance of their judicial duties), Rule 3.8 (prohibiting jurists from initiating or considering ex parte communication concerning a pending or impending proceeding), and Rule 3.17 (B) (requiring jurists to disqualify themselves in proceedings in which their impartiality for the appearance of their impartiality might reasonably be questioned) of the Code of Judicial Conduct; and Rule 1:12-1 (g) of the New Jersey Rules of Court (requiring judges to disqualify themselves in proceedings in which there exists any reason that might preclude a fair and unbiased hearing and judgment, or which might reasonably lead counsel or the parties to believe so);

And the parties having agreed that Respondent's judicial misconduct in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.1 and Rule 1.2; Canon 2, Rule 2.1, Rule 2.2, and Rule 2.3 (A); and Canon 3, Rule 3.6, Rule 3.8, and Rule 3.17 (B) of the Code of Judicial Conduct; and Rule 1:12-1 (g) of the New Jersey Rules of Court warrants a public disciplinary sanction within the range of a public...