Watchdog panel censures City Court judge
Gary Craig
@gcraig1
Rochester City Court Judge Maija Dixon improperly used her judicial position to contact another judge who was overseeing a personal injury lawsuit Dixon had brought against an insurance company, the state's judicial watchdog group has decided.
The state Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a censure — its second-most severe punishment — against Dixon, a Democrat seeking re-election this year.
The most severe punishment is removal from the bench.
Two commission members believed Dixon's actions were egregious enough to recommend that she be removed from the bench, but a commission majority settled on a censure as punishment.
Dixon was the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the GEICO Insurance Co., in which she sought a larger settlement than the insurer had offered for injuries Dixon suffered in a 2006 accident. She was in her parked car when another vehicle struck her.
State Supreme Court Justice Scott Odorisi, whom Dixon knew personally, was the judge handling the civil case. In October 2013, Dixon telephoned Odorisi, identifying herself as "Judge Dixon" to Odorisi's secretary and not stating that she was calling about her pending lawsuit.
Once on the telephone, Odorisi said he could not talk about her lawsuit, but Dixon persisted, saying she was unhappy with her attorneys, she wanted the case moved to another jurisdiction, and she wanted to schedule a settlement conference, according to the commission's ruling.
Complaints about N.Y. judges keep increasing
In testimony before the commission, Dixon claimed she stopped talking to Odorisi once he told her he could not discuss her case. Dixon said the call was no more than 12 to 15 seconds, but Odorisi's secretary and Odorisi both testified that the call was two to three minutes.
Odorisi told Dixon not to contact him again about the case. He notified the attorneys in the case, and said he would recuse himself if the lawyers wanted him to do so.
Dixon's attorney, Kristopher Schwarzmueller of Buffalo, then warned Dixon about making personal contacts with Odorisi. He wrote to Dixon, "You are a sitting Judge contacting another sitting Judge attempting to discuss your personal injury lawsuit to which he has been assigned. … Your case is not the type of case that you should be risking your professional career for."
Several days later Dixon sent a letter to Schwarzmueller, and also sent a copy — via fax and mail — to Odorisi. She did not send a copy to GEICO's attorneys. Odorisi refused to open the letter or read the faxed version, and instead forwarded it to the attorneys on the case.
In the letter, Dixon said she felt she had no choice but to accept the $20,000 settlement offer from GEICO — she had wanted a $75,000 settlement — and she outlined her reluctance to do so, her injuries, and medications she was taking because of the accident.
"On two occasions, (Dixon) violated fundamental ethical principles by privately communicating with the Supreme Court Justice who was presiding over her pending lawsuit against her insurance company," states the commission determination, released Thursday. "… By engaging in such conduct, (Dixon) conveyed the appearance not only that she was seeking special consideration because of her judicial status, but that she was attempting to influence the judge handling her case through prohibited, unauthorized ex parte communications."
Dixon has maintained that she called Odorisi only to schedule a settlement conference. And, while the commission ruled that the subsequent letter was improper, it noted that Dixon said in the letter that she planned to accept the settlement — an indication that she was not trying to influence Odorisi, commission members decided.
The commission board, which includes judges and lawyers, split on the proper punishment for Dixon. Eight members supported censure; two supported removal.
" … I believe that (Dixon's) serious misconduct in abusing her judicial position for personal gain demonstrates her lack of fitness to serve as a judge and therefore warrants the most severe sanction available to this Commission," wrote Commission Chairman Thomas Klonick, a Perinton town justice.
But the majority said that Dixon's actions, while "inexcusable," did not appear to be driven by a "venal intent to influence (Odorisi)."
Dixon was once the complainant in a criminal case in which she accused a man of sending her harassing text messages. The man was convicted of misdemeanor harassment, but the verdict was later overturned after appellate judges ruled that the Monroe County District Attorney's Office had a conflict prosecuting the case.
That case and its subsequent publicity were the reasons she decided she wanted the personal injury case moved out of Rochester, Dixon told the commission.
The state Commission on Judicial Conduct investigates allegations of judicial misconduct. The state Court of Appeals is the ultimate arbiter, and can issue a different decision if the commission's ruling is appealed.
Records show that Dixon was fighting mostly to keep her job as a judge, and was not firmly challenging less severe punishment.
Her New York City-based attorney, Lawton Squires, said Thursday that an appeal of the censure to the Court of Appeals is unlikely.
Commission counsel also recommended that Dixon be removed from the bench, commission records show.
"The evidence clearly establishes that (Dixon), motivated by self-interest, ignored her ethical obligations as a judge and engaged in repeated misconduct which she knew to be wrong," Robert Tembeckjian, the Commission on Judicial Conduct administrator and counsel, wrote in a February report to the commission members. "(Dixon's) egregious misconduct warrants her removal from office."
Dixon testified in a hearing that, while calling Odorisi, she thought the call was improper but she did so anyway. She said she reacted out of emotion, not some effort to influence Odorisi.
Commission counsel and commission members supporting Dixon's removal from the bench questioned whether she was remorseful, as she claimed.
They pointed to Dixon's hearing testimony when she said she would not take the same actions again. Asked why, she said, "Because I am here before the Commission on Judicial Conduct."
"Do you want to add anything to that?" Dixon was asked.
"No," she said.
GCRAIG@Gannett.com