The Boundaries of “Good Behavior” and Judicial Competence: Exploring Responsibilities and Authority Limitations of Cognitive Specialists in the Regulation of Incapacitated Judges
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2018
The Boundaries of “Good Behavior” and Judicial Competence: Exploring Responsibilities and Authority Limitations of Cognitive Specialists in the Regulation of Incapacitated Judges
Both law and medicine rely on self-regulation and codes of professionalism to ensure duties are performed in a competent, ethical manner. Unlike physicians, however, judges are lawyers themselves, so judicial oversight is also self-regulation. As previous literature has highlighted, the hesitation to report a cognitively-compromised judge has resulted in an “opensecret” amongst lawyers who face numerous conflicts of interest.
Through a case study involving a senior judge with severe cognitive impairment, this article considers the unique ethical dilemmas that cognitive specialists may encounter when navigating duties to patient, society, and the medical profession, without clear legal guidance.
Systemic self-regulatory inadequacies in the legal profession are addressed, as well as challenges that arise when trying to preserve the trust and dignity of an incapacitated patient who must fulfill special duties to society.
Ultimately, because of their unique neurological expertise and impartial assessments, we submit that allowing cognitive specialists to submit their assessments to an internal judiciary board may act as an additional check and balance to ensure the fair and competent administration of justice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
M.Hallet al., “Trust in Physicians and Medical Institutions: What is it, Can in be Measured, and Does it Matter?”The Mil-bank Quarterly79, no. 4 (2001): 613-639; C. Chantler and R. Ashton, “The Purpose and Limits of Professional Self-Regulation,” JAMA 302, no. 18 (2009): 2032-2033; F. Zacharias, “The Myth of Self-Regulation,” Minnesota Law Review 93, no. 4 (2009):1147-1190.
2.
L.R.Cruess and S.R.Cress, “Expectations and Obligations: Professionalism and Medicine’s Social Contract with Society,”Perspectives in Biology and Medicine51, no. 4 (2008): 579-598.
3.
See M. Hall et al., supra note 1.
4.
AHamilton, “The Federalist No. 78,” in The Federalist Papers, ed. C.Rossiter (NY: New American Library, 1961), at 469.
5.
U.S. Const. Art. 3 § 1 (1787): “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their office during good Behaviour and shall at stated Times receive for their Service a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in office.”
6.
See U.S. Constitution.
7.
B.Shartel, “Federal Judges-Appointment, Supervision, and Removal-Some Possibilities under the Constitution,”Michigan Law Review28, no. 7 (1930): 870-909.
8.
W.F.Pratt, “Judicial Disability and the Good Behavior Clause,”Scholarly Works, paper 180 (1976): 706-720.
9.
J. M.Fischer, “External Control over the American Bar,”Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics19, no. S9 (2006): 59-110.
10.
Y.Walker, “Protecting the Public: The Impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act on Licensure Considerations Involving Mentally Impaired Medical and Legal Professionals,”Journal of Legal Medicine25, no. 4 (2004): 441-468; A. D’Amato, “Self-Regulation of Judicial Misconduct Could Be Mis-Regulation,” Michigan Law Review 89, no. 609 (1990): 609-623.
11.
F.Greenberg, “The Task of Judging the Judges,”Judicature59, no. 10 (1976): 458-467.
12.
See F. Zacharias, supra note 1; See Y. Walker, supra note 10; See A. D’Amato, supra note 10; See F. Greenberg, supra note 11.
L.E.Herbert, J.Weuve, P.A.Scherr, and D.A.Evans. “Alzheimer Disease in the United States (2010-2050) Estimated Using the 2010 Census,”Neurology80, no. 19 (2013): 1778-1783.
17.
See J. Goldstein, supra note 15.
18.
Deere v. Cullen, 718 F3d 1124: §13.52 (9th Cir. 2013).
19.
See Y. Walker, supra note 10.
20.
42 U.S. Code § 11101-11152 (1986).
21.
OR Rev Stat § 807.710 “Reports of Persons with Cognitive or Functional Impairment.” (2015).
J.T.Berger and F.Rosner, “Ethical Challenges Posed by Dementia and Driving,”The Journal of Clinical Ethics11, no. 4 (2000): 304-308.
24.
J.Song and P.Terry, “A Pedophilic Pediatrician: The Conflicting Obligations,”Journal of Clinical Ethics10, no. 2(1999):142-150.
25.
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425 (S. Ct. 1976). Under the Tarasoff ruling, the Supreme Court of California ruled that mental health professionals at Cowell Memorial Hospital had a “duty to warn” suspected victim, Tatiana Tarasoff, of fellow student Poddar Prosenjit’s intent to kill her after Prosenjit disclosed his specific intent to Dr. Lawrence Moore during a psychotherapy session two months earlier.
26.
H.Keating and TAckerman, “When the Doctor’s on Drugs,”Hastings Center Report21, no. 5 (1991): 29-31.
27.
R.Schouten, “Impaired Physicians: Is There a Duty to Report to State Licensing Boards?”Harvard Review of Psychiatry8, no. 1 (2000): 36–39.
28.
American Bar Association, Formal Opinion 03-431 “Lawyer’s Duty to Report Rule Violations by Another Lawyer Who May Suffer from Disability or Impairment” (2003) available at <http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/cpr/clientpro/03_431.authcheckdam.pdf> (last visited May 20, 2018). See ABA Formal Opinion 03-429 for more discussion of mental impairments that affect a lawyer only on occasion.
29.
Texas Health and Safety Code § 12.096 (2001).
30.
Texas Medical Advisory Board, Department of State Health Services EMS Certification and Licensing, “Guide for Determining Driver Limitation,” (2014) available at <http://www.txacp.org/files/Guide%20for%20Determining.pdf> (last visited May 20, 2018).
31.
Texas Health and Safety Code § 12.098 (2001).
32.
National Center for Health Statistics, “Health, United States, 2015: Special Feature on Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities,” (April 27, 2016).
