Monthly Archives: May 2021

Throwback Thursday

Posted on by

5 years ago this month:

  • The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for (1) telling the parents in a custody hearing, “I don’t know what the hell you two are thinking, but get it together.  All of you,” and “I don’t give a crap about any of you” and (2) in an unrelated severance hearing, telling litigants that “I honestly don’t give a crap about either one of these people.”  Hancock, Order (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct May 12, 2016).
  • The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for immediately denying a litigant’s oral motion to dismiss a photo radar ticket; cutting him off when the litigant said the judge did not know what the motion was about; speaking throughout in an elevated tone and belittling fashion; and telling the litigant to “shut up” and “knock it off,” and that he could do what the judge asked or eat green soup at the jail that evening.  Forshey, Order (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct May 12, 2016).
  • The Arkansas Commission on Judicial Disability and Discipline announced the resignation and permanent removal of a judge and concluded its cases based on allegations that, in addition to other misconduct, he used his judicial status to form sexual relationships with young Caucasian male defendants.  Press release (Boeckmann) (Arkansas Commission on Judicial Disability and Discipline May 9, 2016).
  • The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished a judge for ordering a witness in a criminal case incarcerated for contempt; ordering the payment of monetary sanctions, attorney fees, and costs in a family case; and granting ex parte relief in a custody case.  Public Admonishment of Román (California Commission on Judicial Performance May 16, 2016).
  • Granting the application of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the Iowa Supreme Court publicly admonished a judge for signing an ex parte order presented by an attorney who had recently represented her in a personal matter without charge.  In the Matter of Howes, 880 N.W.2d 184 (Iowa 2016).
  • Based on the recommendation of the Judiciary Commission, the Louisiana Supreme Court removed a justice of the peace for failing to comply with the Court’s previous order to pay a civil penalty for violation of the financial reporting requirements imposed by law and disregarding the actions and legal proceedings connected with that order.  In re Myers, 189 So. 3d 1056 (Louisiana 2016).
  • Based on the decision and recommendation of the Judicial Tenure Commission and a settlement agreement, the Michigan Supreme Court suspended a judge for 120 days without pay and publicly censured her for (1) following ex parte communications, reducing charges, dismissing charges outright, or modifying sentences in at least 20 criminal cases and dismissing at least 32 ticket cases without holding a hearing or explicit authority from the prosecutor; (2) meeting with a defendant and his counsel in the holding cell prior to a bench trial without a prosecuting attorney; (3) sending 2 ex parte texts to the judge who had been assigned to several cases after she had disqualified herself; and (4) declining to appoint a translator for the defendant when she should have.  In re Church, 879 N.W.2d 246 (Michigan 2016).
  • With the judge’s consent, the New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Committee (1) publicly reprimanded a judge for independently investigating facts on Zillow and tax records and considering those facts in reaching her decision in a divorce case and receiving and considering a real estate flyer in a second divorce case and (2) cautioned her about delays.  In the Matter of Albee, Reprimand and caution (New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Committee May 9, 2016).
  • Adopting the findings and recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, which the judge accepted, the New Jersey Supreme Court publicly censured a judge for driving while intoxicated and identifying himself as a judge to the state trooper who stopped him.  In the Matter of Baptista, Order (New Jersey Supreme Court May 19, 2016).
  • Adopting the findings and recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, which the judge accepted, the New Jersey Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge for, in chambers during a break in court proceedings, telling a deputy attorney general she was doing a great job and that he liked how she “shoves it up” or “rams it up” the law guardian’s “a**” and later in the hearing, complimenting a state’s witness while she was testifying.  In the Matter of Portelli, Order (New Jersey Supreme Court May 18, 2016).
  • The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a judge for (1) impermissibly delegating her judicial duties by failing to review or approve dispositions and sentences negotiated by the deputy town attorney with defendants in traffic cases and (2) altering original court records requested by the Commission by placing her initials on case files, next to the prosecutor’s notation of plea agreements.  In the Matter of Calano, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct May 9, 2016).
  • Based on the report of a referee following a hearing, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly censured a judge for speaking about her personal tort action with the judge presiding in the case and subsequently faxing and mailing that judge a letter that included details about her claim.  In the Matter of Dixon, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct May 26, 2016).
  • Pursuant to the judge’s agreement, the Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for characterizing the father in a custody case and/or his attorney as a “sneaky snake” who had connived, engaged in a “ploy,” and manipulated the court schedule when they filed a motion to transfer and for directing that a transcript of her comments be forwarded to the transferee court.  Re Davenport (Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct May 18, 2016).
  • Pursuant to an agreement, the Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a former judicial commissioner for failing to disqualify himself from a case in which one of the attorneys had recommended him for a part-time prosecutor position a month earlier or to disclose the relationship.  Re Cross (Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct May 18, 2016).

Judicial touching

Posted on by

Recently, 2 judges were sanctioned for touching people in the courthouse.

The West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission unequivocally held:  “Unwanted touching is harassment.  Therefore, a judge should never intentionally touch someone without first asking permission.”  The Commission explained:

A common phrase used by almost everyone is “don’t invade my personal space!”  What does it mean and should society be cognizant of the phrase when dealing with other people?  The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “personal space” as “the distance from another person at which one feels comfortable when talking to or being next to that other person.”  It’s the physical distance between two people in a social, family or work environment.  As the author Robert Sommer said, “Personal space refers to an area with invisible boundaries surrounding a person’s body into which intruders may not come.”

The study of personal space is called proxemics.  There are four distinct personal space zones:  intimate (0-2 feet); personal (2-4 ft.); social (4-12 ft.) and public (more than 12 ft).  Deference for a person’s space is a sign of respect for the person.  No one should ever invade someone’s personal space in a work setting without permission.  Consequently, no one should intentionally touch someone in a work setting without permission or even in jest.  As noted by Anthropologist Jane Goodall once said, “You have to realize that touching is a real violation of personal space.”

Thus, based on an agreement that included the magistrate’s resignation, the Commission publicly admonished a now-former magistrate for coming up behind a court employee at work and placing his hands on her hips.  In the Matter of Cole, Public admonishment (West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission April 29, 2021).  The touching was unwelcome and made the employee uncomfortable, but she did not say anything to the magistrate because of his position.  The employee did report the incident to her immediate supervisor, who contacted the chief magistrate, who reported it to the administrative office, which investigated and filed the complaint.

The magistrate said that he had no memory of the incident although he did not deny that it happened, acknowledging that he had always found the employee truthful and had no reason to believe that she made up the incident.

The magistrate admitted that, during a birthday celebration at the courthouse in 2017, he had swatted the same employee on her rear end approximately 9 times.  The magistrate said he stopped when the employee asked him to and that everyone in the room had laughed in a good-natured way.  The employee had been embarrassed but said nothing because of the judge’s status.

The Commission found:

Respondent considers himself a jokester.  Respondent said he often liked to sneak up behind the same employee and make a loud noise or touch her back in an effort to startle her.  Respondent said the employee would jump and they would both laugh.  Respondent acknowledged engaging in such activity with other employees.  Under repeated questioning, Respondent refused to admit that his actions were improper.  Instead, he claimed that he was just being spontaneous, that his actions were intended to be humorous and that he was trying to have some fun. . . .  Respondent declined to acknowledge that any unwelcome touch is an unwarranted touch or that an uneven balance of power would cause an employee to refrain from complaining about an unwanted touch. 

The magistrate agreed to stop spanking employees but “saw no need to stop touching people in an effort to scare them . . . .”

The Commission concluded that the magistrate’s touching of the employee “clearly constituted harassment . . . .  There is no place in the judiciary for a judge who has no respect for boundaries.  By his actions, Respondent cast shame on the whole judiciary and no longer deserves the title of judge.”

* * *

A Texas judge was admonished for approaching a legal assistant in his courtroom, touching her on the arm or shoulder, and rebuking her for sitting in a section of the courtroom reserved for attorneys.  In re Wilson (Texas Special Court of Review May 4, 2021).

The judge took office on January 1, 2019.  On January 29, Sarai Garza, a legal assistant for an attorney, was seated on the first bench in the judge’s courtroom, where, she testified, she had always sat with attorneys, interpreters, and other legal assistants in her 11 years as a legal assistant.

On that day, the judge apparently mistook Garza for the interpreter, saying, “Lady interpreter, are you ready?”  Noting that he was looking at her, Garza introduced herself and said that she was not the interpreter but that she would be “more than glad to help.”  Garza said that “everyone in the courtroom started laughing.”

Blasa Lopez, the interpreter, then entered the courtroom.  The judge left the bench, walked toward Lopez, and grabbed her arm.  Garza walked toward them to clear up the confusion about who the interpreter was.  Then, Garza testified, the judge grabbed and “jiggl[ed]” her right arm and told her in an “angry” and “very upset” voice that she could not sit where she had been sitting.  Garza said that his touch was painful, that she had not expected him to grab her arm in that manner, and that she was speechless.  Garza left the courtroom crying.

Lopez and an attorney who had been in the courtroom testified that they saw the judge grab Garza by the shoulder or arm.  An attorney called by the judge as a witness testified that the judge “came off the bench” in a packed courtroom of “probably 300 people,” “touched [Garza] on the elbow like [he was] trying to get somebody’s attention,” and told her that she could not be on that side of the courtroom. 

According to Garza, the judge grabbed her arm so hard that it was bruised.  Approximately 2 days later, Garza had a medical examination that indicated she presented with “[r]ight biceps and triceps, mild swelling with tenderness.” 

Lopez texted her supervisor to report the incident; the presiding judge filed the complaint with the Commission.  The incident generated a great deal of media attention.  Police investigated, but a grand jury declined to indict the judge.

The judge denied touching or grabbing Garza, or at most admitted to lightly touching her elbow or shoulder.  When asked if it was ever appropriate for a judge to touch a person in open court without their consent, the judge replied, “When a judge gently touches someone . . . it is not sexual harassment, it is not objectionable.”

The Texas Special Court of Review concluded that, “although Judge Wilson claims to not remember touching Garza, every other witness who was present . . . testified that Judge Wilson touched Garza in some way.”  The Court stated that it did not need to resolve whether the judge “forcefully touched or grabbed Garza because it is uncontested that the touching was without Garza’s permission.”  The Court also concluded that the judge’s conduct was willful because he had intended to touch Garza without her consent and to publicly admonish her in his crowded courtroom.  The Court found that the judge had failed “to treat Garza with patience, dignity, and courtesy” as required by the code of judicial conduct.

In mitigation, the Court noted that the judge had been in office for less than 30 days at the time of the incident and that the record revealed no previous or subsequent complaints against him.  However, in aggravation, it emphasized:

The misconduct took place in a public courtroom setting while Judge Wilson was robed and acting in his official capacity as a sitting judge.  The preponderance of the evidence shows that Judge Wilson’s behavior showed no regard or respect for Garza and caused her to be publicly embarrassed. . . .  Judge Wilson has largely failed to acknowledge that the charged misconduct against Garza occurred and has thus failed to take responsibility for his actions.

The Court rejected the judge’s argument “that it was ‘not objectionable’ ‘[w]hen a judge gently touches someone.’” 

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct had also ordered the judge to complete 2 hours of instruction about sexual harassment with a mentor; the Court modified that requirement to 2 hours of instruction about decorum.

Throwback Thursday

Posted on by

10 years ago this month:

  • Based on a stipulated agreement, the Arizona Supreme Court publicly censured a judge for repeatedly abusing his contempt power and a pattern of interference with attorney-client relationships.  Chiles, Order (Arizona Supreme court May 25, 2011).
  • The Arkansas Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge for conducting a Rule 11 proceeding before attempting to establish the falsity of the allegations in a motion for recusal and imposing sanctions on the attorney who filed the motion without establishing the allegations were false.  Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission v. Simes, 381 S.W.3d 764 (Arkansas 2011).
  • In lieu of filing formal disciplinary proceedings and with the judge’s consent, the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications publicly admonished a judge for making inappropriate public comments to a television reporter after his son parked in a handicapped parking space in the court’s public parking lot without an appropriate placard.  Public Admonition of Hunter (Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications May 5, 2011).
  • Based on a statement of circumstances and conditional agreement for discipline, the Indiana Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge for driving while intoxicated.  In the Matter of Hughes, 947 N.E.2d 418 (Indiana 2011).
  • The South Dakota Supreme Court ordered the retirement of a judge for mistreating court employees, insulting lawyers, insensitive racial and sexist jokes, conducting himself on the bench “with unconscionable arrogance,” and referring to law enforcement from the bench as a “bunch of racists” without evidentiary basis.  In the Matter of Fuller, 798 N.W.2d 408 (South Dakota 2011).
  • Based on an agreement for discipline by consent, the South Carolina Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a former judge for making an inappropriate comment to a law student at a county bar reception and having an inappropriate image on his cell phone that was viewed by the law student and others at the reception.  In the Matter of Hughes, 710 S.E.2d 75 (South Carolina 2011).
  • The Tennessee Court of the Judiciary publicly reprimanded a judge for signing ex parte orders of dismissal and expunging convictions.  Letter to Hamilton (Tennessee Court of the Judiciary May 4, 2011).
  • The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a judge for (1) forcing a driver to appear before him so he could lecture her about her driving; (2) directing his court staff to accept payments from defendants on behalf of plaintiffs to discharge judgments and/or to comply with settlement agreements; and (3) directing his court staff to accept rental payments from tenants on behalf of landlords in eviction cases.  Public Admonition of Corbin (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct May 9, 2011).

A sampling of recent judicial ethics advisory opinions

Posted on by

  • When an attorney alleges in a recusal motion that they had a close social relationship with a judge that deteriorated into an adversarial relationship, the judge should fully disclose the nature and extent of that relationship so a determination can be made whether recusal is required in cases in which the attorney appears.  New York Opinion 2021-48.
  • As long as a proceeding brought by a judge on behalf of their minor child is pending, the judge is disqualified from matters involving the adverse party or parties and counsel, subject to remittal.  New York Opinion 2021-23.
  • A judge may accept or reject plea dispositions but must make good faith, individualized determinations regarding the law and its application and may not adopt a broad policy. New York Opinion 2021-46.
  • A judge may direct the court clerk to include with unlawful detainer summonses materials that describe legal and financial assistance available to tenants without giving contemporaneous notice to landlords if the clerks provide notice and a copy to landlords when they file the matter and the materials state that they are not an official court communication and that the court does not endorse the information or require tenants to avail themselves of the resources.  Virginia Opinion 2020-1.
  • Judges may use social media to make statements about the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, including legislation affecting the judiciary or the legal system, but judges must exercise caution and restraint; should assume the widest possible audience due to lack of control over the dissemination and permanence of online statements; may not engage in prohibited social or political commentary; must carefully evaluate what they intend to post; and must continually monitor reactions to their statements and the social media forums they use.  California Expedited Opinion 2021-42.
  • A judge who views another judge’s profile on Facebook and sees that it has posts regarding the 2020 presidential election, media coverage, and bias; links to articles about politics; internet memes regarding politics; expressions of political opinions; and exchanges about politics must report the other judge to the appropriate authority.  Massachusetts Opinion 2021-1.
  • A judge with personal knowledge that an attorney knowingly assisted a client effectuate a transfer of disputed real estate under false pretenses must report the attorney to the appropriate grievance committee.  New York Opinion 2020-213.
  • A judge may not write and publish an article that analyzes a criminal statute, asserts that the Virginia Supreme Court has incorrectly interpreted that statute, and provides an alternative interpretation.  Virginia Opinion 2020-2.
  • A judge may not serve as a member of a county task force created to address hate crimes if the task force has a broad agenda, including legal, educational, social, and policy reforms, but may assist the task force in other ways, for example, by appearing before, providing information to, or advising it on issues within the judicial branch’s purview and relating to the judge’s experiences and perspective as a judge.  California Expedited Opinion 2021-41.
  • A judge may solicit other judges to join, or renew their memberships in, a local bar association, but may not solicit attorneys or other non-judges.  New York Opinion 2021-34.
  • A judge may not be a member of a bar association task force that will monitor and discuss fiscal and human rights issues faced by residents of Puerto Rico.  New York Opinion 2020-209.
  • A judge may not be a member of a voluntary bar association that endorses a particular candidate for appointment as U.S. Attorney.  Florida Opinion 2021-1.
  • A judge may not serve on the board of directors of a not-for-profit senior housing development that is likely to regularly engage in adversarial litigation in any court.  New York Opinion 2021-34.
  • A judicial officer may serve on the board of an organization even if another member of the board is a partner in a firm that regularly appears before the judicial officer on child support cases.  Florida Opinion 2021-2.
  • A judge may allow a CASA program to post pictures of the judge in court in an adoption proceeding (without identification of the child) and to quote the judge on the beneficial value of the program on, for example, the program’s website, social media, and newsletter.  A judge may not submit written correspondence to the local county board in support of funding for the CASA program.  A judge may attend a CASA program’s annual fund-raising event if the judge pays but may not speak at the event.  A judge may speak at educational sessions for volunteers to the CASA program regarding the court’s expectations of a CASA volunteer.  Nebraska Opinion 2021-1.
  • A judge may notify the media relations staff of the administrative office of the court notice that a charitable organization has begun producing handmade robes as part of its mission to break the cycle of poverty for Baltimore citizens returning from prison.  Maryland Opinion Request 2021-3.
  • A judge who objected orally and in writing to their name being in an email soliciting funds for a charitable cause need not take any further action.  A judge may contribute their personal funds, alone or with a co-judge, to sponsor a family in need and may be identified by name and title in doing so but may not make charitable contributions in the name of the court or permit their court staff to do so.  New York Opinion 2020-190.
  • A judge may not provide a biographical video for use in a not-for-profit organization’s social media campaign if the required release and the overall context create an impression that the video will be used to promote the organization and its gala fund-raising event.  New York Opinion 2021-31.
  • A judge may serve as president of a not-for-profit organization that supports a branch of the U.S. military through education, community outreach, youth programs, and programs and services for military personnel and their families.  New York Opinion 2021-47.
  • A judge may not serve on the advisory board of the Center for Court Innovation, which provides alternatives to detention and incarceration for criminal defendants.  New York Opinion 2020-212.
  • A judge may volunteer as an editor for a not-for-profit poetry journal.  New York Opinion 2021-53.
  • A judge may not serve on a committee investigating sexual harassment claims against a member of a worldwide not-for-profit service organization even if the individual is in another county.  New York Opinion 2021-55.
  • A judge may serve on the search committee for the dean of a law school that is financially supported primarily by New York State or one of its political subdivisions, even if the prior dean’s tenure or departure was controversial.  New York Opinion 2021-70.
  • A judge may write a letter about their personal experience while attending a law school and practicing law in the same community that will be sent to prospective law students by the admissions department of a law school in an effort to further diversity at the law school and in the legal community if the school will not use the letter in general fund-raising efforts.  Washington Opinion 2021-2.
  • A judge who is the parent of a child on the autism spectrum may write an article supporting proposed state legislation prohibiting the use of seclusion and restraints as behavior modification tools for public school students who have autism or are on the autism spectrum but may not be identified as a judge.  Florida Opinion 2021-3.
  • A judge may not participate in an interview with a local news station regarding the experiences of the judge’s first-degree relative at a local nursing home.  New York Opinion 2021-24.
  • A new judge may wind down their prior law practice and collect previously earned legal fees, including billing an assigned counsel program for services and complying with a state administrative agency’s requirements for obtaining payment of previously awarded legal fees.  New York Opinion 2021-13.
  • A judge may not participate in a proposed not-for-profit corporation that would be controlled by the judge’s family and would feature the judge as its sole compensated lecturer with a sliding scale of fees.  New York Opinion 2020-200.
  • A judge may not invest in a publicly traded company the sole business of which is the sale of medicinal and recreational marijuana and other cannabis-related products if the company is operating in the U.S. in violation of federal law.  New York Opinion 2020-208.
  • A judge may attend a sporting event or concert in a luxury box as a guest of their spouse when use of the luxury box seats is a benefit incident to the spouse’s employment as an officer of a company that is unlikely to come before the judge.  New York Opinion 2021-35.
  • A judge may seek appointment to a non-judicial employment position with the executive branch of the federal government but must resign prior to accepting the appointment.  Wyoming Opinion 2021-1.

Throwback Thursday

Posted on by

20 years ago this month:

  • Adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law of 3 masters, the California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly censured a former judge for (1) malingering by falsely claiming to be ill; (2) failing to cooperate in the administration of court business; (3) giving non-judicial activities precedence over and allowing them to interfere with his judicial duties; and (4) persistently failing to perform his judicial duties.  Inquiry Concerning Murphy, Decision and Order (California Commission on Judicial Performance May 10, 2001).
  • The Michigan Supreme Court suspended a judge for 6 months without pay for persistently interfering in and frequent interrupting 8 criminal trials from 1994 to 1997 and being impatient, discourteous, critical, and severe toward jurors, witnesses, counsel, and others.  In re Moore, 626 N.W.2d 374 (Michigan 2001).
  • Adopting the recommendation of the Judicial Tenure Commission, the Michigan Supreme Court suspended a judge for 15 days for telling police officers after an accident that the other driver was “doing 85 miles per hour” and requesting that the other driver’s name be run on the Law Enforcement Information Network and that the other driver be ticketed.  In re Brown, 626 N.W.2d 403 (Michigan 2001).
  • Following the judge’s waiver of a formal hearing and pursuant to a stipulation, the Nebraska Commission on Judicial Qualifications publicly reprimanded a judge for criticizing a fellow judge during courtroom proceedings, making a heated private conversation with an attorney public, and participating in an angry dispute with an attorney in open court.  In the Matter of Prochaska, Reprimand (Nebraska Commission on Judicial Qualifications May 17, 2001).

Recent cases

Posted on by

  • The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished a judge for (1) displaying improper demeanor toward 2 criminal defense attorneys appearing by phone for an arraignment and (2) in a second case, making an inappropriate remark about the jury’s verdict to a defendant who had been acquitted.  In the Matter Concerning Connolly, Decision and order (California Commission on Judicial Performance April 2, 2021).
  • Based on a stipulation and the recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Discipline, the Colorado Supreme Court accepted the resignation of a judge and publicly censured her for (1) saying the N-word in a conversation with a Black staff member; (2) expressing her views about criminal justice, police brutality, race, and racial bias while wearing her robe in court staff work areas and on the bench; (3) using court staff for personal tasks; and (4) referring to a judicial colleague with a derogatory term.  In the Matter of Chase, Order (Colorado Supreme Court April 16, 2021). 
  • Based on an agreement, the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission suspended a judge for 7 days without pay for (1) requiring defendants in criminal cases to file written demands for jury trials; (2) making impatient, undignified, and discourteous comments to attorneys with the public defender’s office; and (3) in a proceeding with an unrepresented defendant, suggesting a plea agreement that could reasonably be perceived as coercive for the defendant.  In re Ruttle, Agreed order of suspension (Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission April 7, 2021). 
  • Accepting a stipulation based on the judge’s affirmation that he has vacated his office and will not seek or accept judicial office in the future, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a proceeding against a former judge; the Commission had apprised the judge that it was investigating allegations that he had attempted to have a purported friend’s pistol permit application assigned to himself and then initiated a conversation about the matter with the judge to whom the case had been assigned.  In the Matter of Carter, Decision and order (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 22, 2021).
  • Accepting a stipulation based on the judge’s affirmation that he has vacated his office and will not seek or accept judicial office in the future, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a proceeding against a former judge; prior to his resignation, the Commission had notified the judge that it was investigating complaints that he had (1) dismissed or reduced tickets in multiple cases for defendants with whom he had personal relationships; (2) repeatedly described female litigants and lawyers in demeaning and sexist terms; and (3) improperly used a security camera to record proceedings in his courtroom.  In the Matter of Gallanter, Decision and order (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 22, 2021).
  • Accepting a stipulation based on the judge’s affirmation that he has vacated his office and will not seek or accept judicial office in the future, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a proceeding against a former non-lawyer judge; before the judge resigned, the Commission had notified him that it was investigating complaints that he had repeatedly engaged in unauthorized ex parte communications and gave the appearance of bias in a small claims case.  In the Matter of Hartwell, Decision and order (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 22, 2021).
  • Accepting a stipulation based on the judge’s affirmation that he has vacated his 2 judicial offices and will not seek or accept judicial office in the future, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a proceeding against a former judge who had pled guilty to criminal contempt in satisfaction of charges related to his violation of a stay-away order of protection held by a former girlfriend.  In the Matter of Miller, Decision and order (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 22, 2021).
  • Accepting an agreed statement of facts and recommendation, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly censured a non-lawyer judge for knowingly making materially false statements regarding a grant in a report filed with the court system and using unexpended grant funds to buy an audio-visual system even though he knew that the purchase was unauthorized.  In the Matter of Knab, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 28, 2021).
  • Adopting the findings and conclusions of the Judicial Standards Commission, based on a stipulation and agreement, the North Carolina Supreme Court suspended a judge for 30 days without pay for serving as executor for the estates of 2 former clients who were not members of his family, collecting substantial fees or commissions for such service, and failing to properly report that income.  In re Inquiry Concerning Brooks (North Carolina Supreme Court April 16, 2021).
  • Based on the judge’s resignation and agreement to be disqualified from judicial service in the state, the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct agreed not to pursue further disciplinary proceedings against a former judge who had entered into orders of deferred adjudication of 3 felonies in 2 state criminal cases regarding a pyramid promotional scheme.  Velez, Voluntary agreement to resign from judicial office in lieu of disciplinary action (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 9, 2021).
  • The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly warned a judge for attending a luncheon hosted and paid for by a law firm involved in a highly contested civil case pending before her and set for post-judgment matters the following day and failing to disclose the luncheon to all parties in the litigation; the Commission also ordered the judge to obtain 2 hours of instruction with a mentor.  Public Warning of Phillips and Order of Additional Education (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 9, 2021).
  • The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a judge for orally ordering a defendant to perform community service without entering a written order and, when she failed to complete her community service, issuing a warrant for her arrest without giving her notice and an opportunity to be heard; the Commission also ordered the judge to obtain 4 hours of instruction with a mentor.  Public Admonition of Issacs and Order of Additional Education (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 9, 2021).
  • The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for (1) while at the jail to magistrate an African-American defendant, stating that the defendant needs to be hung “with a f***ing noose around his neck” and (2) without jurisdiction, determining the right to possession of a trailer in an ex parte letter; the Commission also ordered the judge to obtain 11 hours of instruction with a mentor.  Public Reprimand of Baldwin and Order of Additional Education (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 9, 2021).
  • Based on a stipulation and agreement, the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for (1) at the end of a calendar, declining to determine who was attempting to appear in court via Zoom; (2) failing to advise defendants at probation review hearings of their rights; (3) conducting an ex parte investigation into whether a defendant had performed community service hours and stating on the record that she intended to recommend significant jail time and further charges; (4) at arraignment hearings in 2 traffic offense cases, asking the defendants whether they had a valid driver’s license and how long it had been since they had a valid driver’s license; (5) as she sat on cases on the bench, regularly recommending specific businesses to defendants for re-licensing and insurance purposes related to their charges; and (6) regularly presiding over cases in which a notice of disqualification had previously been filed against her.  In re Burchett, Stipulation, agreement, and order of reprimand (Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 23, 2021).

Throwback Thursday

Posted on by

25 years ago this month:

  • Based on an agreed statement of facts, the California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly censured a judge for (1) misusing Department of Motor Vehicle records and using court staff, stationery, and equipment for the judge’s personal activities; (2) making sexually related comments toward female court employees; (3) being absent from the courthouse without reporting the days as vacation time; and (4) regularly leaving the courthouse when the Friday calendar was completed, sometimes as early as noon.  Inquiry Concerning Hyde, Decision and Order of Public Censure (California Commission on Judicial Performance May 10, 1996).
  • The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a judge for improperly intervening on behalf of a woman with whom he had an intimate relationship in an investigation of a child welfare matter.  In the Matter of Kaplan, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct May 6, 1996).

Uncomfortable, angry, and hurt

Posted on by

Based on a stipulation and the recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Discipline, the Colorado Supreme Court accepted the resignation of a judge and publicly censured her for (1) using the N-word in a conversation with a Black staff member; (2) expressing her views about criminal justice, police brutality, race, and racial bias while wearing her robe in the courthouse and on the bench; (3) referring to a judicial colleague in derogatory terms; and (4) using court staff for personal tasks.  In the Matter of Chase, Order (Colorado Supreme Court April 16, 2021). 

In late January or early February 2020, the judge drove a family court facilitator and the judge’s law clerk in her car to and from a safe baby program.  The judge is White; the family court facilitator is Black.  On the way back from the program, the judge asked the family court facilitator why Black people can use the N-word but White people cannot and whether it was different if the N-word is said with an “er” or an “a” at the end.  During the conversation, the judge used the full N-word a number of times.  The family court facilitator was uncomfortable, angry, and hurt by the conversation but could not leave the car or the conversation and did not express her emotions because she feared retaliation by the judge.  She explained that the judge’s use of the full N-word was “like a stab through my heart each time.”  

The judge maintained that she did not intend any racial animus, but acknowledged that her statements violated the code of judicial conduct.  The Commission concluded that, “although not directed at any person, saying the N-word has a significant negative effect on the public’s confidence in integrity of and respect for the judiciary.”

In early February 2020, the judge was on the bench, wearing her robe, during a break in court proceedings.  There were 2 or 3 other people in the courtroom.  2 employees in the courtroom were Black.  When someone brought up watching the Super Bowl, the judge stated, from the bench, that she would be boycotting the Super Bowl because she objected to the NFL players who were kneeling during the National Anthem in protest of police brutality against Black people.

On the Monday in May 2020 after George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis, Minnesota and after there were Black Lives Matter protests in Denver, 2 Black court employees were in the judge’s courtroom.  One of them asked the other if they had seen the George Floyd protests.  The judge, while wearing her robe and sitting on the bench, told the employees some of her opinions regarding racial justice issues and asked questions about the Black Lives Matter movement.  The employee tried to explain the Black Lives Matter movement; the judge stated that she believes all lives matter.  The judge also stated that the conduct of the police officers in the George Floyd matter should be investigated.

In the first half of 2020, the judge told her clerk she was meeting with another judge.  When she returned from the meeting, the clerk asked how it went, and Judge Chase called the other judge a “f****** b****.”

In early 2020, the judge directed her law clerk to do some legal research related to a personal family legal issue that was unrelated to the judge’s official case load.

In August 2020, the judge had a medical episode at the courthouse.  After courtroom deputies came to her aid, the judge declined an ambulance.  She then asked one of the court employees to drive her to the emergency room.  The judge also asked the court employee to stay with her at the hospital.  The employee missed a half day of work to accommodate the judge.

Throughout 2020, the judge forwarded personal emails to her clerk and asked her clerk to edit or rewrite the emails to read better before the judge sent them.

The judge repeatedly and discourteously discussed personal and family matters with staff and other employees in office work areas and as part of court business.