- With the judge’s consent, the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities released its private reprimand of a judge following a complaint that the judge received commissions as a real estate agent involving real estate included in estates being supervised by the orphans’ court over which she presided.
- Adopting the decision and recommendation of the Judicial Tenure Commission, to which the judge consented, the Michigan Supreme Court suspended a judge for 30 days without pay and censured him for (1) asking a woman he had placed on probation if she was interested in seeing him and (2) contacting another judge on behalf of a friends’ daughter after she was arrested. In re Mazur (November 25, 2015).
- Based on an agreed statement of facts and joint recommendation, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct censured a non-lawyer judge for issuing warrants of eviction and money judgments in 2 summary eviction proceedings without according the tenants an opportunity to be heard or reviewing the supporting documents and failing to mechanically record 2 other eviction proceedings. In the Matter of Williams, Determination (November 2, 2015).
- Adopting the findings and recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission based on stipulated facts, the North Carolina Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge for, during proceedings in a divorce case, failing to be patient, dignified, and courteous to the parties; making inappropriate comments to the parties; misstating the law when he threatened future contempt proceedings; improperly exercising his contempt powers; and failing to maintain order and decorum. In re Hill (November 5, 2015).
- The Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit changed a district judge’s docket, with the judge’s agreement, so that the judge will not preside over trials requiring more than 2 days of evidence as “corrective action” after a limited inquiry indicated “it was at least possible” that reports in the press and filings that the judge appeared to fall asleep several times during judicial proceedings “were either true, or at a minimum that there could have been a public perception that they were true.”
Judicial ethics and discipline 