Complaint against Cele Hancock re: Hinson

This is, as lawyers say, moot, since Judge Brutinel has already anointed, errr... appointed Cele Hancock as a judge pro tem and she is running unopposed for judge this year in Prescott.

Curiously, the local newspaper reported

Celé Hancock of Prescott filed for the Division 5 seat to replace William Kiger, who was elected in 1998 and took out a nomination packet but did not file nomination petitions by Wednesday's deadline.

But she's running anyway.

A reporter tells me they made a "mistake" in reporting. Reminds me of Mike Royko old Mayor Daley Chicago style politics. (Nothing in Prescott would surprise me anymore. Can you say "Small town politics?")

Still, for the record, I offer this complaint of misconduct regarding former judge hinson, filed against Cele Hancock late December 2009, before the Yavapai County Supervisors approved her as judge.

I wasn't at the Supervisors meeting when they took Hancock's appointment up for consideration. As I allege the Supervisors have demonstrated a failure to supervise (regarding approval of Judge Mary Hamm, who engaged in ex parte communication with a litigant, caused the tampering of a public record, perhaps tapered with witnesses, etc.), I'd be curious to know if the Supervisors did any due diligence here and considered this complaint or simply rubber stamped the appointment.

This is a complaint against Attorney Cele Hancock for violating Arizona Ethics Rule 8.3(b), for not "Reporting Professional Misconduct." There is at least one count, documented herein. Upon information and belief, there are likely more.

As background, this complaint revolves around the established misconduct of former Superior Court Judge Howard Hinson. The former judge resigned as a result of a finding of misconduct by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. (See News Release, Exhibit 1.) The Commission's full report is found on its website at
http://www.supreme.state.az.us/ethics/Complaints/2008_Complaints/Hinson_08-3080001.pdf

The Commission found that, over a three year period, former Judge Hinson had violated Arizona's constitutionally mandated 60-day Rule at least twenty five times from 2006 through 2008. In fact, according to the Commission's report, this had been an on going problem with the former judge, dating back to 2001. In my informal conversations with a few attorneys in the Prescott area, Judge Hinson's unconstitutional delays in deciding rulings was well known.

In particular, as it pertains to Mrs. Hancock, one of the violations the Commission found involved one of Mrs. Hancock's cases. Namely, Bodine v. Bodine, as shown in Exhibit 2. [Exhibit 2 is available for review at the Supreme Court's Finance office. It is a Quarterly Report of Submitted Matters, prepared by the Superior Court clerk in her oversight capacity, per Supreme Court Rule 91(e).]

As Mrs. Hancock was an attorney in this matter representing Plaintiff, and as she is based in Prescott and is well connected (that is, she would have known the scuttlebutt about Judge Hinson's reputation), she had to know that Judge Hinson had violated Article VI, Section 21 of the Arizona Constitution with his tardy ruling in her client's case. In fact, even the client was aware of Judge Hinson's delays, per her comment in the web edition of a Prescott newspaper. Commenting about Judge Hinson, Plaintiff acknowledged, "Yes, we had to wait... " (Comment from Melody [Bodine], page 2 of Exhibit 3.)

Now, Ethics Rule 8.3(b) specifically requires that "A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority." That this was a "substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office" is a foregone conclusion, having now been adjudicated by the Commission, resulting in the resignation of Judge Hinson.

The Bodine v. Bodine violation occurred on September 9, 2008. Judge Hinson was overdue by a month, 33% over the time allotted by law. But according to the Commission, there were no complaints filed against Judge Hinson in the two years prior to the landmark complaint filed in late November 2008 which resulted in his resignation. Therefore, Mrs. Hancock violated E.R. 8.3(b) because she did not file a complaint of judicial misconduct against Judge Hinson for violating the Constitution and her Plaintiff's right to a speedy trial.

Furthermore, according to the Defendant in this case, even though the Superior Court clerk did not catch them in her quarterly audits, Judge Hinson violated the 60-day Rule at least three more times during the Bodine trial. I have information from many other litigants that Judge Hinson likewise violated the 60-day Rule in their cases which were also missed by the hand audit of the clerk. May I suggest the State Bar contact Mr. Bodine for the specific dates of Judge Hinson's violations to see if Mrs. Hancock was further obligated to report?

To be fair, C. Hancock was Plaintiff's second attorney, albeit for a majority of the case. So not all of these unreported delinquent maters may have occurred during her watch. (Although, having watched the entire trial, I expect they all did.) Again, any violations of the 60-day Rule which occurred why Mrs. Hancock was Plaintiff's attorney would be more violations of E.R. 8.3(b).

And there may be other cases in the three year list of Judge Hinson's violations the clerk complied which involve Mrs. Hancock. As I do not have the resources to find the attorney of record for these, I ask the State Bar to do the research. There are 24 other 60-day violations by Judge Hinson which were complied by the clerk. Would you please check to see if Mrs. Hancock was counsel for them? If she was, then these would be further counts of violating E.R. 8.3(b). I have provided the clerk's audit in PDF on CDROM to aid you in your research.

My overarching concern is that Cele Hancock recently applied to be a Superior Court judge.
Ironically, she was applying to fill Judge Hinson's vacancy. Also ironically, while Judge Hinson resigned for ethics violations, Mrs. Hancock had violated the Ethics Rules herself by not reporting his violations.

Considering that her father is a venerable Superior Court judge in Yavapai County, I presume she is even more aware of her ethical responsibilities to the Bar and to the Court. Yet she failed to obey the Rule by not filing a complaint with the Commission, leaving the responsibility to an ordinary citizen.

This complaint needs to be in the record so that, if Mrs. Hancock should again apply to be a judge, the Governor or the JNC may be fully informed of her history.