In re Lallo

768 A.2d 921 (2001)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Lallo

Rhode Island Supreme Court
768 A.2d 921 (2001)

Facts

John Lallo (defendant) was a Rhode Island state judge on the Administrative Adjudication Court (AAC). In October 2000, Lallo was notified by the Rhode Island Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline (the commission) (plaintiff) that substantial evidence existed to support charging Lallo with violations of Rhode Island’s Code of Judicial Conduct. Lallo was an admitted gambling addict, and the commission had evidence that on 66 days between 1993 and 1997, Lallo had been absent during work hours because he was gambling at a public casino in Connecticut. On the days he left work to gamble, Lallo arrived to work early and completed his judicial calendar and any other work assigned to him by the AAC’s chief judge before leaving. In addition to the gambling, the commission had evidence that while Lallo was a sitting judge, he had knowingly made a false statement related to a personal bankruptcy petition and pleaded guilty to violating a federal statute prohibiting the making of false declarations before a court or grand jury. Lallo’s guilty plea resulted in a felony conviction that mandated Lallo’s removal from judicial office. Lallo admitted to the matters in the commission’s violation notice. The commission’s final report concluded that a substantial sanction should be imposed in addition to Lallo’s mandatory removal required by the felony conviction. The commission unanimously recommended requiring Lallo to reimburse Rhode Island taxpayers $28,000, which represented Lallo’s entire salary for the days that he had left the AAC during work hours to gamble in Connecticut. Lallo appealed the commission’s recommendation, arguing that the $28,000 sanction was a penal sanction that the commission did not have the jurisdiction to recommend and that the Rhode Island Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to impose. Lallo also argued that the commission had deprived him of his right to a jury trial before imposing the penal sanction.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 816,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership