Allegation
Although not cited by Judge Kelly in his findings, the Special Administrator made reference to an additional issue in supporting his conclusions as to my “lack of candor”, when he “discerns a similar inability [by me] to communicate with candor in regard to another request by Judge Kelly in his letter dated September 30, 2014” (Attachment 1), concluding “That failure to comply with a direct request evinces an essential lack of candor that give the undersigned pause as to the effectiveness of any court oversight of her activities” (Attachment 2).
Response
Click on Attachment for supporting document
In response to Judge Kelly’s request, along with my written response (Attachment 3), I provided a copy of each Certificate of Appointment identifying each matter with a hand written notation of the month and day of the last visit (Attachment 4). As stated, Judge Kelly did not respond with further inquiry to my letter. It was not until the disciplinary hearing (18 months later) that any issue with the submission was raised.
At the disciplinary hearing the Special Administrator inquired as to the provision of the documents to Judge Kelly, asking why the year was omitted from dates of the last visit (Attachment 5). In his Recommendation, he states, “[I] offered that all visits reported by month and year were within the 12 months preceding . . . . no explanation was given for the reason the year was omitted.” (Attachment 12-footnote), leading him to further conclude that “failure to comply with a direct request evinces an essential lack of candor that gives the undersigned pause as to the effectiveness of any court oversight of her activities”. (Attachment 2)”.
Although I was not in possession of documents referencing a matter 18 months prior, I responded to the best of my ability, clarifying the visits were within the year preceding the inquiry. There was no attempt on my part to either be untruthful or lacking candor in any manner. I believe the format in which I provided the information was sufficient. Apparently Judge Kelly did also, as he requested no further information or clarification, I presume, because he understood the noted visit dates were all within the preceding year.
The Special Administrators conclusions that my “failure to comply” rises to a level of concern that “give[s] him pause as to the effectiveness of any court oversight of her activities”, is simply a gross exaggeration and importance given to a non-issue for which I offered a simple and reasonable explanation.