5 years ago this month:

• Based on a stipulated resolution, the Arizona Supreme Court publicly censured a judge for taking additional testimony from a plaintiff in a harassment case after disconnecting from the defendant, who was appearing by telephone; failing to cooperate with requests from the Commission on Judicial Conduct; and making misrepresentations to the Commission. Inquiry Concerning Parker, Order (Arizona Supreme Court June 4, 2012).
• The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge who, when a defendant said he had hit a driver who had honked at him and flipped him off, had responded: “I know I shouldn’t say it, but I personally did not disagree with what you did.”  Lester, Order (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct June 1, 2012).
• Accepting the findings and recommendation of the Judicial Qualifications Commission based on a stipulation, the Florida Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge for being habitually tardy for hearings, first appearances, and trials and making a statement that introduced his religious beliefs into decision-making. Inquiry Concerning Singbush, 93 So. 3d 188 (Florida 2012).
• Granting an application filed by the Commission on Judicial Qualifications, the Iowa Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. In the Matter of Block, 816 N.W.2d 362 (Iowa 2012).
• Based on the judge’s resignation and withdrawal of her request for review, the New York Court of Appeals removed a judge in accordance with the findings of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct that she (1) improperly intervened in the disposition of a speeding ticket issued to another judge’s wife and (2) accepted special consideration for a speeding ticket that had been issued to herself. The Court’s order does not describe the judge’s conduct; this summary is based on the Commission determination.  In the Matter of Schilling, Order (New York Court of Appeals June 19, 2012).
• The New York Court of Appeals removed a judge from office for presiding over 8 matters involving his paramour’s relatives without disclosing the conflict; engaging in ex parte communications with his paramour and her relatives concerning 4 of the matters; and making dispositions in 5 of the matters that conveyed an appearance of favoritism. In the Matter of Young, 974 N.E.2d 658 (New York 2012).
• Pursuant to the judge’s agreement with the investigative panel, the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary publicly reprimanded a judge for conducting a hearing and setting release conditions for a defendant accused of burglarizing his office. Re Randolph, Letter of reprimand (Tennessee Court of the Judiciary June 15, 2012).
• Pursuant to the judge’s agreement with the investigative panel, the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary publicly reprimanded a judge for telling a group of defendants that he wished he could “pull a trap door” and send them “straight to hell right now.” Re Houston (Tennessee Court of the Judiciary June 25, 2012).