Based on stipulations of fact in lieu of trial, the Court of Judicial Discipline has fined former Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice J. Michael Eakin $50,000 for exchanging “sordid and offensive” e-mails with friends and professional acquaintances.  In re Eakin, Opinion (Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline March 24, 2016).  The justice had resigned on March 15.

The justice had a personal yahoo e-mail address that did not identify him by name or judicial title but as “John Smith.”  The justice used his personal e-mail address, while on his Commonwealth-issued computer, to communicate with a group of men who went on golfing vacations, played fantasy football, and engaged in other social activities together.

The justice sent 1 e-mail to the golfing group that included a photograph of a semi-nude woman and sent the group approximately 17 other e-mails with gender and ethnic stereotypes or inappropriate and chauvinistic statements.  In particular, the Court noted 3 e-mail exchanges between the justice and a deputy attorney general that were “strikingly egregious in light of the fact that the justice was talking about his judicial employees.”

The justice also received e-mails from the golfing group and “blast e-mails” from a friend who was a criminal defense attorney.  Approximately 130 of the e-mails contained photographs of nude or semi-nude women, video clips of comedy skits with sexually-suggestive themes, photographic slide shows of faux “motivational posters,” homophobic content, jokes about violence against women, and jokes based on negative gender, racial, ethnic, religious, or socioeconomic stereotypes.

Addenda to the Court’s opinion describe the e-mails, which are dated from 2008 to 2014.

The Court found that the justice failed to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.  The Court concluded that the justice’s actions, “although they occurred outside of deciding cases or holding sessions of court, still can be fairly considered to be ‘on-bench’ conduct,” noting the justice conversed “in a sexually suggestive manner about employees in his judicial office” and used Commonwealth-issued computer equipment and that some of the individuals with whom he exchanged e-mails were also using government-supplied computers and e-mail servers.  Further, the Court stated, his “position as a justice of the Supreme Court conferred upon him not only the duty to decide cases, but also significant administrative responsibilities for our justice system.”

Finding that the justice’s conduct “drastically damaged the reputation of the state judiciary” and “dramatically lessened public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the entire Judiciary,” the Court noted the “harsh criticism” of his conduct from private citizens, community leaders, and legal and governmental officials and the news reports about his conduct both state-wide and nationally.  The Court explained:

Whether labelled misogynistic, racially-biased, biased against national origin, or biased toward sexual orientation, [the e-mails] represent a list of topics which should give any jurist pause.  The list also corresponds, in a number of instances, with categories protected by the laws of the United States and of our Commonwealth.  Significantly, they could cause citizens to wonder whether their cases received unbiased consideration by Respondent, something that we find abhorrent to the principles to which Respondent has ostensibly dedicated his entire professional career.  A reasonable inference that Respondent lacked the impartiality required of judges also fundamentally lessens public confidence in the judiciary.

The Court acknowledged that the justice had expected the e-mails would remain private and that humor is often “in poor taste and rooted in the extreme.”  However, the Court noted the probability that the e-mails would become public given that government equipment and judicial and government internet servers were being used.  Moreover, it concluded, “the emails demonstrated a misjudgment by Respondent, both in his understanding of how electronic communications work, as well as the substantive content of those communications.”

Noting its “disgust with, and disapproval of, the sordid and offensive communications giving rise to this case,” the Court stated that “the common thread of the emails, with their imagery of sexism, racism, and bigotry, is arrogance and the belief that an individual is better than his or her peers.  Such beliefs are antithetical to the privilege of holding public office, where the charge is to serve, not demean, our citizens.”

Although allegations of legal error or an abuse of discretion generally do not constitute judicial misconduct (which explains the high dismissal rate for complaints about judges), there are exceptions to that rule.  Three exceptions –an egregious error, a pattern of error, and a decision made in bad faith – were all illustrated in a discipline case that led to the removal of a justice of the peace by the Louisiana Supreme Court last week.  In re Laiche, Opinion (Louisiana Supreme Court March 15, 2016).  The Court found that the judge’s “faulty interpretation of the law, failure to faithfully enforce it, incompetence and gross negligence in the administration of his office, and general indifference to these failures” have “negatively affected many lives and cast[] a dark shadow on the judiciary as a whole.”

The judge’s misconduct arose in 2 unrelated disputes in which he granted peace bonds applied for by family members against other family members.  (In Louisiana, in response to an application, a justice of the peace can require an individual to pay a peace bond that is held as security on the condition that the defendant not commit “the threatened or any related breach of the peace.”)

1 dispute involved “a heated and very unpleasant child custody case” that led to many altercations between the Vignes and LeBlanc families.  Over several years, the judge issued multiple peace bond orders against the ex-husband, his family, and his girlfriend at the request of the ex-wife and her family.

The second dispute arose following the death of Marvin Henderson.  Within a week, his children sought peace bonds against their stepmother, accusing her of inappropriate behavior following his death, including at his memorial service.

The Judiciary Commission found, and the Court agreed, that the judge had entered peace bond judgments without required hearings, had imposed peace bonds over the $1,000 maximum allowed by law, had imposed fees over the $15 cap set by law, had sentenced defendants who failed to pay the bond to more than the 5 days in jail allowed by law, had extended the terms of peace bonds beyond the 6-months allowed by law, and had not timely refunded peace bond money, in addition to other misconduct.

The Court held that some of the judge’s errors were egregious because they deprived individuals “of their freedom for an extensive period of time” or “violated the constitutional rights of the parties to present a defense,” noting “there is no greater expectation of our citizens” than that “judges will protect their constitutional rights before subjecting them to the loss of liberty.”  The Court found a pattern of legal error both in the 8 instances in which the judge impermissibly extended the terms of peace bonds and his numerous other legal errors regarding peace bonds.  Finally, the Court found that the judge made some of the errors in bad faith, noting, for example, that the judge personally benefitted from the “shortcuts” he took that allowed him to receive his justice of the peace salary without performing the work, leaving him more time for his law practice and other personal endeavors.

In an unrelated reminder of the importance of adhering to proper procedures, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to state chief justices and court administrators to address common court practices regarding the assessment and enforcement of fines and fees “that run afoul of the United States Constitution and/or other federal laws.”  Noting the Department’s commitment “to assisting state and local courts in their efforts to ensure equal justice and due process for all those who come before them,” the letter lists 7 requirements grounded in the rights to due process and equal protection:

(1) Courts must not incarcerate a person for nonpayment of fines or fees without first conducting an indigency determination and establishing that the failure to pay was willful;(2) Courts must consider alternatives to incarceration for indigent defendants unable to pay fines and fees;
(3) Courts must not condition access to a judicial hearing on the prepayment of fines or fees;
(4) Courts must provide meaningful notice and, in appropriate cases, counsel, when enforcing fines and fees;
(5) Courts must not use arrest warrants or license suspensions as a means of coercing the payment of court debt when individuals have not been afforded constitutionally adequate procedural protections;
(6) Courts must not employ bail or bond practices that cause indigent defendants to remain incarcerated solely because they cannot afford to pay for their release; and
(7) Courts must safeguard against unconstitutional practices by court staff and private contractors.

The letter urged the recipients to review rules and procedures, to forward a copy of the letter to every judge in the jurisdiction, to provide appropriate training, “and to develop resources, such as bench books, to assist judges in performing their duties lawfully and effectively.”