N.J. high court adopts new ethics rule

TRENTON - The New Jersey Supreme Court on Wednesday adopted a new ethics standard for judges, as it ruled that two lower-court jurists who dined with a longtime friend who had been indicted had compromised judicial integrity by creating an appearance of partiality.

The high court did not impose sanctions on the two, but made clear that going forward, such behavior would face punishment.

The judges had argued that the earlier standard used to evaluate their conduct was too subjective.

At issue was the conduct of Raymond A. Reddin, a judge of Superior Court in Passaic County since 2003, and Gerald Keegan, a part-time municipal judge for Paterson since 2004.

They had been friends with Anthony Ardis for decades, and had attended dinner and Mass together with him weekly since 2000, according to court documents.

In 2011, Ardis, a former official with the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission, was charged with official misconduct for directing subordinates to perform home repairs for his friends, using agency equipment, during work hours. Ardis was convicted in March 2014.

The judges were aware of the indictment but continued to socialize with Ardis. On one occasion in September 2012, the three were spotted together at a Passaic County restaurant.

A guest attending the same restaurant for a Republican gathering recognized two of them and alerted Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, according to court documents. The matter was ultimately referred to the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, which investigates allegations of judicial misconduct for the state Supreme Court.

A year later, the panel issued complaints accusing the judges of violating the Code of Conduct by creating "an appearance of impropriety that had the potential to weaken public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."

In adjudicating previous ethics cases, the courts had considered only whether there was "a fair possibility that some portion of the public might [be] concerned" about a judge's conduct, regardless of whether such suspicion was reasonable, the high court said.

In a unanimous opinion Wednesday, the high court added an element of objectivity to that test, articulating the question this way: "Would an individual who observes the judge's personal conduct have a reasonable basis to doubt the judge's integrity and impartiality?"

While the panel found no improper motives, it said the judges had created "more than a 'fair possibility' that some portion of the public might conclude that" they "tacitly endorsed Mr. Ardis' innocence, disagreed with the criminal justice system that indicted him, or, worse, assisted Mr. Ardis with his criminal court matter."

That standard - whether there was a "fair possibility" that a jurist's conduct might cast doubt on impartiality - had been invoked to reprimand judges in the past, including Robert Blackman, an Edison Township judge who in 1990 attended a picnic hosted by a friend who was soon heading to prison on federal racketeering charges.

In his opinion Wednesday, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner said 39 states and the District of Columbia had formulated more objective standards.

The standard adopted Wednesday brings New Jersey in line with those states.

"That approach appropriately protects the reputation of the judiciary and, by extension, the public," Rabner wrote for the court. "It still requires that judges tailor their personal behavior to avoid the appearance of impropriety. And when there is a reasonable basis to doubt a judge's behavior, the questioned conduct would be forbidden and could subject the jurist to discipline."

He added that by "socializing in public with a defendant who awaited a criminal trial," Reddin and Keegan "created a reasonable prospect that a member of the public would call into question their view of the charges and the criminal process underway."

While their conduct was improper, the court would not impose penalties, Rabner wrote. He also noted that the judges' records were unblemished and said they stopped attending the dinners when they learned a grievance had been filed.

An attorney for Reddin said he was pleased with the decision. "I also want to commend the Supreme Court for using this unique situation to provide guidance going forward to other members of the judiciary," said the attorney, Raymond B. Reddin, the judge's son.

Keegan's attorney could not be reached.