Judge Welch presided over a case involving whether licensed attorneys in Arkansas are considered “officers of the court” and thus allowed to carry firearms in courthouses. The plaintiffs, Arkansas attorneys, sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, which the defendants, the Pulaski County Sheriff and the Pulaski County Judge, moved to dismiss. Judge Welch granted the motion to dismiss, citing procedural issues and deeming the interpretation of the law as suggested by the plaintiffs unconstitutional and flawed.
The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, leading to a review of the statute in question by the higher court. The higher court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, concluding that attorneys are indeed considered “officers of the court” and allowed to carry handguns in courthouses. Judge Welch was instructed to issue an order consistent with this ruling.
Upon remand, Judge Welch issued a temporary order staying the implementation of the higher court’s opinion in part, pending further hearings and input from various stakeholders. This action led to concerns about a potential violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
In response to these concerns, Judge Welch explained that he was simply following the mandate of the higher court and seeking input to implement the decision practically. He also defended his style of writing as a form of vigorous debate, acknowledging some missteps.
However, the higher court found that Judge Welch’s actions eroded public confidence in the judiciary by mischaracterizing the higher court’s opinion and suggesting a creation of a new class of armed lawyers. They emphasized the importance of upholding the separation of powers and the role of the judiciary in interpreting laws, not making them.
Ultimately, the higher court concluded that Judge Welch’s response did not show a full understanding of the seriousness of his actions and the impact on public confidence in the judiciary. They warned against the dangers of disregarding mandates and undermining the authority of the higher courts. It is unprofessional, rebellious, and damaging to the public’s trust in the judiciary’s ability to uphold its own rules. Judges must adhere to established frameworks if they expect others to do the same. Judge Welch’s actions were inappropriate for the bench, and it is disappointing that he failed to recognize the consequences of his actions even after reflection. The public must have confidence that judicial orders will be followed and appellate mandates will be executed. Judge Welch’s violation of Rule 1.2 is evident.
Rule 2.2(A) mandates that a judge must uphold and apply the law impartially and fairly. Despite the unique backgrounds and personal philosophies judges bring to the bench, they are required to interpret and apply the law regardless of personal opinions. In Judge Welch’s case, his disagreement with the court’s interpretation of a statute and his attempt to stay an opinion and mandate of the Supreme Court of Arkansas for three months demonstrated a clear violation of this rule. Judge Welch exceeded his role by attempting to stay the court’s decision, which he had no authority to do. Lower courts are only empowered to act within the scope of a higher court’s opinion and mandate, any actions contrary to these directions are considered null and void. Judge Welch’s actions were a clear violation of Rule 2.2.
Furthermore, Rule 2.3(B) prohibits judges from manifesting bias or prejudice in the performance of their duties. Using derogatory terms or negative stereotyping is considered biased behavior. Judge Welch referring to an opinion from the Supreme Court of Arkansas as “LOCO” in a joking manner violated this rule. Additionally, his independent fact-finding and ex parte communication in the case further demonstrated a lack of impartiality. Judge Welch’s conduct violated Rule 2.3.
In light of these violations, Judge Welch has been formally admonished and ordered to undergo remedial measures to address his actions. It is essential for judges to conduct themselves with professionalism and respect in their roles and while presiding over cases. Judge Welch’s behavior was unacceptable and did not meet the standards expected of a member of the judiciary.
Similarly, I find the issue of labeling a court opinion as “LOCO” to be separate from whether the judge presides over cases in the civil-commitment mental-health court and unrelated to concerns of “bias” and “prejudice” as outlined in the Code of Conduct. However, it is my belief that trial judges should refrain from categorizing higher court opinions as “LOCO” or delaying the implementation of higher court opinions due to perceived flaws.
It is important to uphold professionalism and respect for the judicial system, regardless of personal opinions on the validity of court decisions. By maintaining decorum and adhering to ethical standards, judges can ensure the integrity and impartiality of the legal process.
It is crucial for judges to approach their duties with objectivity and fairness, setting aside personal biases and upholding the principles of justice. By upholding the standards set forth in the Code of Conduct, judges can uphold the public’s trust in the legal system and promote confidence in the judiciary.
