Herron said that he did not want to comment about the Superior Court case specifically, but "the issue in general is an extraordinarily difficult one. The Superior Court opinion was appropriate and engaging in intellectually wrestling with the problem for all judges. The problem, as we all recognize, is when is disclosure appropriate? What type of disclosure is appropriate? As judges we live in a world of both professional and personal relationships. How do you draw the line of when you do appropriately disclose?"
One of the difficult aspects involving Tereshko was that Tereshko decided the motion without having a hearing and without disclosing his spousal relationship, Herron said.
Herron did say that Tereshko has made an "extraordinary contribution as a supervising judge. He worked diligently and he worked long, long hours. He has mentored many judges over the years. He has been a part of the civil program for an extraordinarily long time."
Judge Arnold L. New was appointed as the new supervising judge.
New "was a natural person to turn to," Herron said, because he was an "extraordinary judge in the commerce program. He was extremely well-regarded by the bar. He showed a great willingness to take on a learning process in the complex litigation mass tort program."
While New will be continuing in the interim as the supervising judge of the Complex Litigation Center, which involves appeals from arbitrations and mass tort cases, another judge will be introduced to supervise the complex litigation program and will work alongside New for a period of time just as New worked alongside his predecessor, Judge Sandra Mazer Moss, in supervising the Complex Litigation Center.
Tereshko said that he did not know where he will be assigned, and Herron said the decision would be New's.
A message left at New's chambers was not returned immediately.
Tereshko did not disclose that his wife, Heather Tereshko, was working in Post & Schell's professional liability department at the time that Post & Schell was representing the defendant in Barnes v. Westfield Group, according to the concurring opinion.
One of the Superior Court judges on the panel hearing the appeal said in a concurring opinion that the trial judge prejudiced the plaintiff by the lack of disclosure.