IN RE:
	Bradford Clark Timbers	:
	District Justice In and For	:	Court of Judicial Discipline
	Magisterial District 31-2-03	:	Docket No. 3 JD 95

BEFORE:
	Honorable Joseph F. McCloskey, President Judge Honorable William F. Burns Honorable William C. Cassebaum Honorable Samuel J. Magaro Honorable Robert A. Messa

This Court does not accept alcoholism as an excuse for misconduct by a judicial officer for the improper performance of his duties or conduct which brings disrepute upon the judicial system and causes the public to lose confidence in the system. We do recognize that alcoholism is a disease. The Court finds that alcoholism may be considered a mitigating circumstance when deciding what sanction is appropriate. The Court may impose the less severe sanction of suspension, rather than removal, when the nature of a judicial officer's misconduct in light of his alcoholism warrants such reduction in sanction.

Cassebaum, J., files a dissenting opinion in which Messa. J., joins.

IN RE:
	Bradford Clark Timbers	:
	District Justice In and For	:	Court of Judicial Discipline
	Magisterial District 31-2-03	:	Docket No. 3 JD 95

BEFORE:
	Honorable Joseph F. McCloskey, President Judge Honorable William F. Burns Honorable William C. Cassebaum Honorable Samuel J. Magaro Honorable Robert A. Messa

I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision on sanctions. I would order the Respondent removed from office.

I agree with the majority's conclusion that the Respondent's alcoholism played a pivotal part in his wrongful conduct. I accept the Respondent's statements that he is in recovery and has not taken a drink of any alcoholic beverage since he was suspended in November, 1994. However, although I wholeheartedly endorse the Respondent's participation in recovery programs, I believe that the public's confidence in the Respondent's position as a judicial officer has been irreparably harmed by his conduct. The facts are clear that the Respondent's actions constituted misconduct in office, failure or neglect to perform the duties of office, conduct which prejudices the proper administration of justice and which brought the judicial office into disrepute. In this case, the effect of the Respondent's conduct regretfully outweighs his potential to serve.

Messa, J., joins in this dissent.