25 years ago this month:

• The Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission publicly admonished a judge for eliminating the suspended portions of a sentence and immediately remanding a defendant to the custody of the sheriff to punish the defendant for his attorney’s announcement in open court that they would appeal the original sentence.  Letter to Evitts (Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission May 24, 1995).
• The Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission publicly admonished a judge for failing to decide a case for more than a year.  Letter to Reynolds (Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission May 24, 1995).
• The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished a judge who, at a second judge’s request, had allowed the second judge’s relative to attend traffic school after failing to complete it when first ordered to do so and had dismissed a failure to appear citation received by the same relative after the other judge indicated that he was responsible for the relative’s failure to appear and that he would take care of the inadequate muffler with which the relative had also been charged.  Public Admonishment of Bjork (California Commission on Judicial Performance May 30, 1995).
• Adopting the recommendation of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the Florida Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge for writing, on his official court stationery, a character reference letter for a personal friend who was awaiting sentencing in federal court.  Inquiry Concerning Ward, 654 So. 2d 549 (Florida 1995).
• Approving a stipulation, the Florida Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge who had been charged with DUI.  Inquiry Concerning Esquiroz, 654 So. 2d 558 (Florida 1995).
• The Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications ordered a judge who had been arrested for and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol to cease and desist from any act or acts that could be found to violate the state law, including those relating to the consumption and use of alcoholic beverages.  Inquiry Concerning Beasley, Order (Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications May 4, 1995).
• Pursuant to the recommendation of the Judiciary Commission, the Louisiana Supreme Court publicly censured a judge for (1) for approximately 8 months after taking office, allowing his former law partner to use and/or share the court’s secretary/receptionist, telephone system, post office box, office supplies, and law library; (2) filing a candidate’s report that failed to list cash contributions of $2,300; (3) hiring a law clerk knowing that she was also working as an independent contractor for a private law firm and allowing her to do research for him in a case in which the firm had been counsel for the plaintiff/appellee; and (4) writing a letter on personal judiciary stationery to a U.S. District Court judge recommending leniency in the sentencing of a friend.  In re Decuir, 654 So. 2d 549 (Louisiana 1995).
• Pursuant to the recommendation of the Judiciary Commission, the Louisiana Supreme Court removed from office a judge who had pled guilty to 1 misdemeanor count of failing to file a federal income tax return and was sentenced to a 12-month prison term.  In re Huckaby, 656 So.2d 292 (Louisiana 1995).
• Pursuant to a report filed by the Committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court disbarred a former judge who had been found liable for fraud committed while a judge.  In re Cox, 658 A.2d 1056 (Maine 1995).
• Adopting the findings of the Judicial Tenure Commission, the Michigan Supreme Court publicly censured a judge who, during a dispute with another driver over a parking space at a mall, accelerated his car and struck a security officer who had waved a third driver into the parking space.  In re Bradfield, 532 N.E.2d 711 (Michigan 1995).
• The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a judge for, instead of immediately scheduling a trial as the law requires when a defendant in a traffic case pleads not guilty by mail, routinely required those defendants to appear before him for pre-trial “conferences” without notifying the prosecuting authority.  In the Matter of Cavotta, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct May 3, 1995).
• Approving the recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission, the North Carolina Supreme Court publicly censured a judge for (1) initiating a series of ex parte communications with law enforcement and court personnel concerning a friend’s son who had been taken into custody for breaking and entering a store, informing them that the juvenile was “a good kid,” asking for help on behalf of the juvenile, and stating that the matter was not one for court; and (2) initiating ex parte communications with a law enforcement officer concerning an automobile accident that resulted in charges being filed against the driver of a car in which the daughter of the judge’s friend was a passenger, expressing his opinion that the matter was civil rather than criminal and that if the case came before him he would so declare it, and suggesting to the officer that he reconsider his assessment as to fault.  In re Martin, 456 S.E.2d 527 (North Carolina 1995).
• Approving the recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission, the North Carolina Supreme Court publicly censured a judge for comments he made in 2 rape cases.  In re Greene, 456 S.E.2d 878 (North Carolina 1995).
• The Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline removed a former judge from office and declared him to be ineligible for judicial office for violating laws that prohibit knowingly maintaining devices used for gambling purposes and knowingly permitting premises to be used for unlawful gambling.  In re Chesna, 659 A.2d 1091 (Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline 1995).
• The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended a judge for 15 days without pay for remaining as a judge in a criminal case pending against a friend; expressing publicly, from the bench and on the record, his personal views concerning the criminal charge pending against his friend and similar charges pending in other cases; criticizing the gambling investigation in which he himself figured; failing to reveal that the defendant had contacted him; and misrepresenting that the defendant had not contacted him or sought special treatment.  In the Matter of Carver, 531 N.W.2d 62 (Wisconsin 1995).