Judicial Review Council nominee Rhonda Tobin says council must balance confidentiality and public trust as complaints rise

Rhonda J. Tobin, managing partner of Robinson & Cole, told the Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee on Feb. 11 that she would apply a consensus‑oriented, evidence‑based approach if confirmed as chair of the Judicial Review Council.

Tobin told the panel the council’s core function is to receive and investigate complaints about the conduct of the state judiciary — including judges, family support magistrates and workers’ compensation commissioners — and then deliberate, following a defined process that ranges from dismissal to private admonishment, public censure or referral to the state Supreme Court. She said investigations include review of transcripts and, where available, audio recordings to assess demeanor as well as words.

"The Judicial Review Council performs a critical role to address public concerns about the conduct of members of the judiciary," Tobin said, adding she would rely on the council’s executive director and investigators to assemble evidence and present findings for deliberation.

Committee members asked Tobin about an apparent rise in complaints. She cited the Office of Legislative Research numbers the committee referenced — a rise from roughly 102 complaints to 225 over a two‑year period — and said several factors could contribute, including greater public awareness and broader national distrust in the judiciary. Tobin said the council must preserve confidentiality during preliminary reviews to protect respondents from unfounded allegations, but also ensure that substantiated misconduct proceeds to public probable‑cause hearings and, if warranted, public discipline.

Tobin explicitly referenced Connecticut statute 51‑51q (as cited in committee materials) when describing limits on what the council shares with judicial‑selection or reappointment bodies: only cases resulting in private admonishment or public censure are typically disclosed at reappointment or nomination reviews. She said the council can and should review prior complaint histories for patterns that would be relevant to reappointment or new appointment recommendations.

Several members pressed Tobin on recusals and conflicts. Tobin said she would recuse herself from matters involving judges who had been her former law partners; she identified four sitting superior‑court judges who are former partners and said she would step aside for those cases.

The committee moved and approved the nomination. Members emphasized the council’s balancing act: ensuring complainants that their concerns will be heard while protecting judges from politically motivated or meritless claims that could chill judicial service.

Why it matters: The Judicial Review Council investigates judicial misconduct allegations and can impose discipline; its chair helps set priorities and ensure the council follows statutory procedures. A rise in complaints raises questions about how the council maintains confidentiality, deters frivolous filings and preserves public confidence in the judiciary.

Next steps: The committee approved Tobin’s nomination and advanced it for confirmation by the full chamber. Tobin said she will attend her first council meeting, gather the council’s staff and review recent case work to identify any procedural or resource needs.