« Even Law Firms Get Bankruptcy Bills |
Main
| Pre-Paid Legal Remains a Good Investment »
Federal Judge Resigns, Effective in June 2010
In recent months, we've become all too familiar with the concept of deferred start dates -- as long as six months to a year for many new associates. But deferred retirement dates, like the one proposed today by convicted U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent in his letter of resignation to President Obama, aren't as commonplace.
Then again, the facts surrounding Judge Kent's impending departure from the federal bench aren't entirely commonplace either. Back in August 2008, my colleague Bob Ambrogi posted about the three-count indictment filed against the judge, charging him with federal sex crimes. Last month, on May 11, Judge Kent was sentenced to 33 months in prison for obstruction of justice in the federal investigation of his alleged sexual abuse of two female court employees. Since then, the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Impeachment has been gearing up for hearings on Judge Kent's impeachment starting this Wednesday, according to Texas Lawyer. But Judge Kent won't be attending, as he's already given notice to the President that he is resigning his position as a federal district court judge -- effective June 1, 2010.
So if Judge Kent is due to report to prison on June 15, why won't his retirement take effect for a year? Essentially, Kent and his attorney, Dick DeGuerin, hoped that by agreeing to resign, Judge Kent would avoid the spectacle of the impeachment process. That process could take up to a year, during which time Kent would be entitled to pay. By agreeing to resign, Kent and DeGuerin figure that they are saving Congress the trouble of wasting time on an impeachment without making taxpayers any worse off.
But Kent's thoughtfulness didn't go over well with House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith, who says:
Judge Kent's own actions continue to prove that he is unworthy of
public service. By choosing to resign effective a year from now, Judge
Kent is attempting to secure a year's salary, paid for by the American
taxpayers, while he sits in a prison cell as a convicted felon. This is
an outrageous abuse of authority and defies the very principles of
justice Judge Kent swore to uphold. Ensuring that a corrupt judge does
not receive another penny of taxpayer dollars is one of the most
important jobs for this Congress and a priority for the Judiciary
Committee.
Nice try, Dick.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on June 2, 2009 at 04:38 PM | Permalink
| Comments (1)