Audit sheds light on handling of complaint against Utah Supreme Court justice

SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah legislative audit found the state's Judicial Conduct Commission "generally followed" its guidelines in handling a complaint against a Supreme Court justice, but the panel's processes need improvement.

The report from the Office of the Legislative Auditor General specifically analyzed a case involving Diana Hagen, who resigned from the Utah Supreme Court in May after the governor and legislative leaders said they planned to investigate allegations that she had an improper relationship with an attorney who argued high-profile cases before the court.

Even though the commission largely followed its established rules, "the processes in this and the other cases we reviewed warrant improvement," the auditors' report concluded.

"The organizational weaknesses identified throughout this report extend beyond any individual case and could undermine the consistency, transparency, and defensibility of commission decisions," they wrote.

'Risks to impartiality'

The audit, which was released Wednesday afternoon, specifically highlighted one situation when the Judicial Conduct Commission — which is tasked with looking into allegations of misconduct by judges — weighed whether to move forward with a full investigation of Hagen.

The chairwoman of the commission, Cheylynn Hayman, is close friends with Hagen, as KSL reported in May. Although she recused herself from the investigation, Hayman did so only after casting doubt on the source of the allegations — Tobin Hagen, the former justice's ex-husband — according to state Sen. Todd Weiler.

"I've heard that (Hayman) recused herself," the Republican senator said on his podcast, "but not before kind of telling the rest of the committee, 'Well, you can't believe anything from (Hagen's) husband. He's not a reliable source.'"

Hayman previously told KSL Weiler's description of events was "not accurate." But she acknowledged telling commission members she had been "a victim of accusations at the hand of Tobin" in the past.

The audit confirmed the broader incident involving Hayman — without referring to her by name — noting that "a commissioner commented on the character of the complainant before recusing from further participation."

"Disclosing personal relationships with individuals involved in the matter is common and expected. However, this example was unusual because the commissioner used the disclosure to also raise questions about the credibility of the complaint," the audit stated. "This example illustrates the risks to impartiality that can arise when policies do not clearly define the scope and purpose of disclosures made before recusal."

The auditors recommended clearer guidance for recusing and disclosing conflicts of interest. Without that, commission members may offer varied levels of information which "may affect perceptions of decision-making reliability."

The Judicial Conduct Commission ultimately opted not to conduct a full investigation into the complaint against Hagen, noting it had "very little credibility." That led the governor, House speaker and Senate president to call for an independent investigation, saying the initial review by the commission and the court "left important questions unresolved."

Top Republicans had previously been upset with how Hagen voted on several decisions.

Hagen denied wrongdoing but resigned in May before the independent probe began.

Audit finds issues with transparency, accountability

The audit also made other recommendations. It called for stricter guidelines around documenting investigations that the Judicial Conduct Commission considered but did not pursue, such as the Hagen case.

"Reports rarely documented whether staff considered additional interviews, record reviews, or other investigative activities and why they didn't pursue them," the audit stated.

Because the commission's investigators "are not consistently documenting the rationale for limiting investigative activity," the audit continued, "the commission cannot readily determine whether investigative scope decisions were reasonable."

Auditors also recommended the Legislature more clearly define the commission's role.

Overall, the audit praised the commission's work but noted ongoing issues with transparency, documenting decisions, accountability and other issues that were first identified in an audit more than 20 years ago. Auditors made several additional recommendations to tighten up the process.

"While commissioners exercise significant authority over judicial discipline decisions, the commission has not established sufficient governance structures to ensure consistent expectations and decision-making frameworks support those decisions," the audit stated. "Stronger governance practices would reduce reliance on institutional knowledge, support continuity as membership and leadership change over time, and improve public confidence in the fairness and consistency of the disciplinary process."

Commission director responds

In a written response to the audit, Alex Peterson, the commission's executive director, acknowledged the findings and said "there is always room for improving our processes."

"We agree that the audit's recommendations may result in performance improvements," Peterson wrote. "We look forward to exploring these with the Commission as well as other performance improvements the Commission has already undertaken that are not referenced in your audit, such as enhanced confidentiality protocols, commissioner types, responsibilities, and performance procedures, and the scope of commissioner authority."

Lawmakers are already considering some changes that could be made during the next legislative session that starts in January. Weiler, who chairs the Senate's judiciary committee, said he has opened a bill file with plans to reform the commission.

Related topics