Martin Fallon
Kenai District Court | Third Judicial District
Judge Fallon was appointed to the Kenai District Court in December of 2019. This is his second judicial retention election.
Performance Summary
The Alaska Judicial Council finds that Judge Fallon did not meet performance standards related to integrity, and diligence and administrative skills. The Alaska Judicial Council therefore recommends against his retention in office.
This conclusion is based on surveys and reviews from attorneys, court employees, jurors, and other user groups familiar with the judge’s work, analysis of the judge’s financial disclosure documents, analysis of how often the judge’s decisions were affirmed on appeal, whether their pay was withheld for untimely decisions, how often the judge was disqualified from a case, whether the judge followed standards of ethical conduct and continuing education, input from the public, and the judge’s demonstrated commitment to the administration of justice and the community
The Council's evaluation process included an interview with Judge Fallon and an opportunity for Judge Fallon to comment on his own performance.
“I continue to be honored to serve as a District Court Judge in Kenai. It is an enormously rewarding, challening, and interesting position that presents new challenges every day.”
- Judge Fallon
Detailed Performance Findings
The Council evaluated Judge Fallon’s performance on legal ability, integrity, impartiality and fairness, judicial temperament, and diligence and administrative skills. Judge Fallon did not meet performance standards in the areas of diligence and administrative skills, and integrity. The Judicial Council found significant deficits in Judge Fallon’s organizational and administrative skills and his timeliness, to a degree that has impeded the efficient administration of justice in the Kenai courthouse. This conduct also violated standards of ethical conduct for judges and may have undermined public confidence in the courts. These findings are based on the Alaska Supreme Court's Order for Public Reprimand, public ethics files, salary records, information from attorneys and court employees, and an interview with Judge Fallon, as described below.
Complete reports are posted in the source documents below.
-
▼ Diligence & Administrative Skills
Was the judge prepared for court proceedings, did the judge work diligently, and was the judge reasonably prompt in making decisions?
No, Judge Fallon did not meet the performance standard for diligence and administrative skills. This conclusion is based in part on a public reprimand issued to Judge Fallon by the Alaska Supreme Court for failing to dispose of two matters in a prompt and efficient fashion, and because in another instance Judge Fallon’s pay was withheld for a decision pending more than six months.
In one of these cases, the parties had been waiting for Judge Fallon’s decision for more than seven months. Eight months after the case was ready to be decided, another judge put a sticky note on the file to alert Judge Fallon that the case was overdue and had been closed in error in the computerized case tracking system. Six weeks after the note, Judge Fallon issued his decision.
During the time when this case had been undecided for longer than six months, and after another judge flagged the file, Judge Fallon signed three pay affidavits attesting that to the best of his knowledge and belief, there was no matter referred to him which had been undecided for a period of six months or longer. Each pay cycle, judges must sign an affidavit declaring that no matter referred to them has remained undecided or uncompleted for more than six months. Under Alaska law, a judge cannot receive a paycheck if they have any decision undecided or uncompleted for more than six months.
In a second case, Judge Fallon requested additional information from the parties six months to the day after the matter was ripe for decision. Judge Fallon’s request for more information had the effect of extending the due date of the decision until after the parties filed the additional information. After the parties submitted the requested information, Judge Fallon waited an additional four months to issue his decision.
The Alaska Supreme Court found that Judge Fallon’s conduct in these two cases was negligent and violated standards of ethical conduct for judges because he failed to dispose of the matters in a prompt and efficient fashion, which stood to prejudice the administration of justice and may have undermined the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. In addition, by signing the three pay affidavits after another judge brought the overdue matter to his attention, Judge Fallon acted in a manner that did not promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and created an appearance of impropriety.
Judge Fallon did not dispute the facts of the incidents as reported to the Alaska Supreme Court and did not contest that his failure to dispose of the cases in a prompt and efficient fashion or his signing of pay affidavits while one of the matters remained outstanding amounted to violations of ethical requirements for judges.
The supreme court recognized that Judge Fallon had not faced prior disciplinary proceedings, Judge Fallon appeared to provide full and free disclosure to the Commission and cooperated with disciplinary proceedings, and Judge Fallon did not have a selfish or dishonest motive. After considering all the facts and circumstances, the supreme court imposed a public reprimand as a sanction.
After receiving this public reprimand, Judge Fallon reported that he again had a matter pending before him longer than six months in January 2025. Juge Fallon’s paycheck was properly withheld until he completed his decision.
Attorneys rated Judge Fallon’s diligence as excellent. Court employees and peace officers rated him as good. See chart below for numerical ratings.
-
▼ Integrity
Was the judge's conduct free from impropriety or the appearance of impropriety, and did the judge make decisions without regard to possible public criticism?
No, Judge Fallon did not meet the performance standard for integrity. As described above, The Alaska Supreme Court issued a public reprimand against Judge Fallon because his conduct in failing to decide matters in a timely manner, and signing sworn statements that he had no matters pending for longer than six months when he should have known that one of the matters remained undecided, was not consistent with standards of ethical conduct for judges.
Attorneys, court employees, and peace officers rated Judge Fallon’s integrity as excellent. See chart below for numerical ratings.
Judge Fallon filed financial disclosure statements with the Alaska Public Offices Commission and separate conflict-of-interest forms with the court system as required, and the Council found no items of concern in these disclosures.
Judges must disqualify themselves from cases where they have a conflict of interest or their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The Council found no concern about Judge Fallon’s performance on this requirement.
-
▼ Legal Ability
Did the judge demonstrate knowledge of substantive law, evidence and procedure, and clarity and precision in their work?
Attorneys familiar with Judge Fallon’s work rated his legal ability as good. See chart below for numerical ratings. Attorneys who appeared in cases before him gave positive reviews.
Jurors who served in Judge Fallon’s courtroom rated his attentiveness, intelligence and skill as excellent.
In Alaska, a party who disagrees with a trial judge’s decision can appeal to a higher court. The appeal court analyzes the judge’s decision and issues an opinion. The Council reviews all the opinions and analyzes how often and why individual judges are affirmed or reversed as one measure of the judge’s legal ability. Judge Fallon had one case appealed and decided in the evaluation period. One case is not enough to use as a statistical performance measure. Judge Fallon was reversed in that one case. A review of the opinion raised no concerns about his legal ability. For more details, see the Appellate Affirmance Report, linked below.
Judge Fallon met or exceeded educational requirements set by the Alaska Supreme Court.
-
▼ Impartiality & Fairness
Did the judge demonstrate a sense of fairness and justice and treat all parties equally?
Attorneys, court employees, and peace officers rated Judge Fallon’s impartiality and fairness as excellent. See chart below for numerical ratings.
Jurors who served in Judge Fallon’s courtroom rated his impartiality as excellent. See chart below for numerical ratings.
Court rules allow a litigant at the beginning of a case to file a request for change of judge. Parties whose cases were assigned to Judge Fallon seldom asked for a different judge.
-
▼ Judicial Temperament
Was the judge courteous and free from arrogance, and did the judge manifest human understanding and compassion?
Attorneys and court employees rated Judge Fallon’s judicial temperament as excellent. Peace officers rated his temperament as good. See chart below for numerical ratings.
Jurors who served in Judge Fallon’s courtroom rated him excellent on respectful and courteous behavior.
Judge Fallon demonstrated commitment to improving the administation of justice and to community outreach. Judge Fallon:
- Serves on a court system committee that plans an annual judicial conference;
- Has hosted student tour groups at the Kenai court; and
- Volunteered to help at the Palmer courthouse when two judges’ positions were vacant.
See Judge Fallon's retention questionnaire for more information.
The Judicial Council distributed electronic surveys to attorneys, court employees, jurors, and peace officers asking them to rate Judge Fallon’s performance on key skills. Survey ratings from these groups are shown in the charts below.
