- With the judge’s agreement, the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure determined that a judge violated the code of judicial conduct by (1) making comments that were not germane to the disposition of a case to send messages to attorneys and the public; and (2) in a child custody case, failing to follow established procedures required by clear and unambiguous law and making comments that one of the parties interpreted as a threat and demonstration of his bias against her; the Commission concluded that no further action or sanction was warranted. Re Christian, Determination and undertaking (D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure April 20, 2020).
- Approving a statement of circumstances and conditional agreement for discipline, the Indiana Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge for, in a dispute with county officials regarding benefit payments for the drug court coordinator, negotiating on the coordinator’s behalf in his capacity as judge and behind the scenes with the coordinator’s attorney and threatening the county auditor with contempt unless the coordinator was offered a substantial settlement. In the Matter of Miller, Order (Indiana Supreme Court April 30, 2020).
- Based on the judge’s admissions, the Montana Supreme Court suspended a judge for 30 days without pay for (1) failing to properly report that she employed H.W. as her nanny, babysitter, and/or office worker; denying H.W.’s employment status during the discipline proceedings; and making false and misleading statements to the University of Montana School of Law to preclude H.W.’s admission; (2) publicly endorsing 2 partisan candidates for non-judicial offices on her personal Facebook page; (3) contributing to a partisan candidate; (4) having endorsements from 2 partisan candidates and a political organization had on her campaign Facebook page; and (5) during her campaign, claiming 2 years of experience under the student practice rules as 2 years of law experience and giving herself credit for approximately 80 jury trials while she was a law clerk for a federal judge. Inquiry Concerning Harada (Montana Supreme Court April 17, 2020).
- Accepting an agreed statement of facts and recommendation, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly censured a judge for (1) initiating, engaging in, and considering an ex parte communication with a deputy sheriff concerning a jail policy and practice related to the merits of a motion pending before him in a criminal case and failing to disclose the communication and (2) failing to report 16 cases to his administrative judge on his quarterly reports of cases pending more than 60 days without decision. In the Matter of Carter, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct March 31, 2020).
- Based on an agreed statement of facts and recommendation, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly censured a non-lawyer judge for, during her 2018 campaign for election, (1) publishing a campaign advertisement and distributing campaign materials that gave the impression that she would consider revenue generation for the town in her judicial decisions and (2) liking or replying to crude Facebook posts by her supporters about her election opponent. In the Matter of VanWoeart, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct March 31, 2020).
- Accepting a stipulation based on the judge’s resignation and agreement not to seek or accept judicial office, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a proceeding against a former judge who had pled guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree, a felony. In the Matter of Cicale, Decision and order (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 2, 2020).
- Accepting a stipulation based on the judge’s resignation and agreement not to seek or accept judicial office, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a proceeding against a former judge who had pled guilty to federal tax evasion charges. In the Matter of Seedorf, Decision and order (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 2, 2020).
- Accepting a stipulation based on the judge’s resignation and agreement not to seek or accept judicial office, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a proceeding against a former judge who resigned after the Commission alleged in a formal written complaint that, in September 2018, the judge had operated his motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and asserted his judicial office with the police officer at the scene in an attempt to avoid arrest or other adverse consequences. In the Matter of Rebolini, Decision and order (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 30, 2020).
- Agreeing with the recommendation of the Board of Professional Conduct, which adopted findings of a panel based on the parties’ stipulations, the Ohio Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and referring to her judicial office during the traffic stop. Disciplinary Counsel v. Doherty (Ohio Supreme Court April 14, 2020).
- Adopting the findings and recommendation of the Board of Professional Conduct, the Ohio Supreme Court suspended a former magistrate from the practice of law for 6 months, with the entire suspension stayed conditionally, for having a lengthy ex parte conversation with one party after the other party had left the courtroom following a hearing and discussing the evidence in case and her personal views on the absent party’s integrity, indicating how she intended to rule, making inappropriate comments about the parties’ religions, and using profanity; and failing to disqualify herself from the case after the ex parte communication. Disciplinary Counsel v. Porzio (Ohio Supreme Court April 23, 2020).
- Based on the findings and conclusions of the Judicial Hearing Board, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals suspended a magistrate for 90-days without pay, fined him $2,000, and reprimanded him for violating a state fishing regulation, displaying his court identification card to the Department of Natural Resources officers, his “belligerent and coercive behavior” toward the officers, and denying in a sworn statement during the investigation that he had acted in a disrespectful and coercive manner toward the officers. In the Matter of Ferguson (West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals April 22, 2020).
Judicial ethics and discipline 