Monthly Archives: February 2022

Throwback Thursday

Posted on by

5 years ago this month:

  • Adopting a joint resolution based on an agreement and stipulation, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary suspended a judge for 11 months without pay for incarcerating traffic offenders for non-payment of fines and costs without inquiring into the reasons for non-payment, in clear violation of state law; incarcerating offenders for months without a written order; and delegating judicial authority to a private probation company.  In the Matter of Hayes, Final judgment (Alabama Court of the Judiciary January 6, 2017).
  • The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for gathering signatures for 5 nominating petitions for her judicial precinct’s constable.  Felix, Order (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct February 6, 2017).
  • The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for multiple errors in an eviction proceeding; the Commission also directed the judge to complete additional training.  Carrillo, Order (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct February 6, 2017).
  • Agreeing with a statement of circumstances and conditional agreement for discipline, the Indiana Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a senior judge who had been arrested and convicted for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.  In the Matter of Page, 69 N.E.3d 470 (Indiana 2017).
  • Based on an agreement, the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission publicly reprimanded a former judge for engaging in a sexual relationship with a woman who was a defendant in a felony criminal case over which he was presiding and several ex parte communications with her about her case. In re Dortch, Public reprimand (Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission February 24, 2017).
  • Based on his consent and agreement not to serve in a judicial position, the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline publicly censured a former judge for ordering a public defender handcuffed and holding her in contempt of court and holding 3 defendants in contempt without entering the necessary written order of contempt.  In the Matter of Hafen, Stipulation and order of consent (Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline February 27, 2017).
  • Based on the judge’s consent, the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline publicly reprimanded a judge for falsely claiming in a campaign ad that he had been endorsed by 5 state agencies that had not endorsed him and do not endorse political candidates.  In the Matter of Smith, Stipulation and order of consent (Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline February 27, 2017).
  • The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals suspended a judge for 2 years without pay and fined him $15,000 for a campaign flyer that portrayed his opponent, the incumbent judge, partying at the White House with President Obama.  In the Matter of Callaghan, 796 S.E.2d 604 (West Virginia 2017).

Winter Judicial Conduct Reporter

Posted on by

The winter issue of the Judicial Conduct Reporter has been published and is available on-line. The issue has articles on:

  • State judicial discipline in 2022
  • Removal cases in 2021
  • Top judicial ethics and discipline stories of 2021
    • Judicial ethics during a crisis
    • Judicial disqualification
    • What judges said on social media that got them in trouble in 2021
  • What judges said that got them in trouble in 2021
    • What they said in or about criminal proceedings that got them in trouble
    • What they said in family court or domestic violence proceedings that got them in trouble
    • What they said around the courthouse that got them in trouble
    • What they said off-the-bench that got them in trouble

The Judicial Conduct Reporter is published electronically, and an index and past issues are available on-line. Anyone can sign up to receive notice when a new issue is available.

A sampling of recent judicial ethics advisory opinions

Posted on by
  • A judge’s friendship with an attorney or party to a proceeding does not per se require disqualification. Even if a judge subjectively believes that they are not biased, the judge should examine on a case-by-case basis the closeness of their relationship with an attorney, the totality of the circumstances in the relationship, its bearing on the case, and whether those circumstances might lead a reasonable person to believe that the judge and the attorney share a close and unusual relationship that makes recusal necessary. Even if the judge concludes recusal is not necessary, the judge should disclose the relationship to the parties. Colorado Opinion 2021-2.
  • A judge may allow their court staff to solicit individual lawyers to represent defendants in consumer debt cases pro bono but must avoid the appearance that attorneys are being coerced to provide such representation. New York Opinion 2021-149.
  • If a judge is alerted by a third party to Facebook posts allegedly by a defendant the judge sentenced that make negative comments about the judge, the victim, and a relative of the victim who spoke at the sentencing hearing, the judge may not review or consider the posts or discuss the issue with the commissioner of the division of corrections and rehabilitation but should immediately refer the message from the third party to the prosecutor and the defense attorney to investigate its truthfulness and take any action that they deem appropriate. West Virginia Opinion 2021-2.
  • With many conditions, a judge may provide feedback on courtroom performance to attorneys or their supervisors but must not provide feedback immediately after a hearing or trial while the case may be or is being appealed. California Formal Opinion 2021-18.
  • Justices of the peace may not negotiate the disposition of misdemeanor charges directly with defendants on the record in open court without the participation of but in the presence of the district attorney’s office. Nevada Opinion JE2021-1.
  • A judge may write to members of the county legislature to “emphasize the urgency” of repairs to the courthouse, to encourage legislators to proceed promptly, and to suggest that the county use COVID-19 aid money received from the federal American Rescue Plan for the repairs. The judge may also encourage other judges in the county to express support for the repairs. New York Opinion 2021-121.
  • A judge may attend a local “survivors group” to better understand the difficulties encountered by victims of domestic violence as long as none of the members of the group is a victim or witness in a matter currently pending before the judge. New York Opinion 2021-152.
  • With conditions, a judge may teach a course at a public or private college or university, give a motivational speech, or teach a continuing education course. A judge’s teaching schedule should not create conflicts with the judge’s daily docket or administrative schedule, and a judge must avoid the appearance that they are devoting significant time to teaching or speaking. A judge should consider the subject and the audience before accepting an offer to teach or speak. Ohio Opinion 2021-11.
  • A judge may provide a letter of recommendation on official court letterhead based on the judge’s personal knowledge of the individual for whom the recommendation is written. Ohio Opinion 2021-12.
  • A judge may write a reference letter based on their personal knowledge if it is the type of letter that would be written in the ordinary course of business or a judge’s personal relationship. Any letter a judge may write may be written on official stationery if the judge indicates that the reference is personal and if it is not likely that the use of the letterhead would reasonably be perceived as an attempt to exert pressure by reason of the judicial office. Pennsylvania Formal Opinion 2021-1.
  • A judge may not participate as a judge in a charitable organization’s jail-and-bail fund-raiser in which the organization’s supporters create phony charges and collect donations to secure their bail. West Virginia Opinion 2021-16.
  • A new judge may continue volunteering as a sideline broadcaster of high school football games for a radio station. West Virginia Opinion 2021-17.
  • A judge may accept a referral fee earned prior to assuming the bench but must disqualify themself from all matters involving the law firm or lawyer to which the case was referred until final payment, with very limited exceptions. Michigan Opinion JI-150 (2021).
  • A judge may hold shares in a family-held limited liability company that owns real estate and may participate in management of the company’s real estate investment, but must not manage, operate, or otherwise actively participate in a family-held bar that operates on the company’s real estate. New York Opinion 2021-154.
  • A judge may apply for an appointment as a federal administrative law judge and go through background checks and salary negotiations prior to accepting an offer. The judge may continue to serve in the state judiciary after they have been appointed as an ALJ until the day before they start their new job. New York Opinion 2021-156.

Throwback Thursday

Posted on by

10 years ago this month:

  • The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished a judge for cancelling the court reporter scheduled for proceedings before another judge.  Public Admonishment of Edwards (California Commission on Judicial Performance February 7, 2012).
  • 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 an ex parte communication with a prosecutor in which he “coached” the prosecutor to ask certain questions of state witnesses, demonstrating his reservations about the defendant’s defense, and then failing to disqualify from the case.  In the Matter of McCloskey, 50 A.3d 15 (New Jersey 2012).
  • The Tennessee Court of the Judiciary publicly reprimanded a judge for, while he was on military duty in Germany, allowing an unauthorized individual to sit as a substitute judge on several occasions and attempting to set bonds by e-mail.  Letter to Bell (Tennessee Court of the Judiciary February 27, 2012).
  • The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a judge for repeatedly interceding on behalf of a criminal defendant, who was the daughter of the woman with whom he was living, by contacting the prosecutor, the district judge, and law enforcement officials.  Public Admonition of Nicholds (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct February 8, 2012).

Recent cases

Posted on by
  • After a hearing on a complaint filed by the Judicial Inquiry Commission, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary suspended a judge for 90 days without pay for “repeatedly disregarding the law as set forth in decisions of the Alabama appellate courts and by defying and disregarding orders and decisions of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, including those ordering her recusal;” “making inappropriate statements regarding the Alabama judiciary,” including statements in an order suggesting that it “is politically corrupt, that court-appointed attorney assignments are based on political contributions to judicial campaigns, and that ‘[a]n appeal to the higher courts in Alabama on behalf of a capital defendant sentenced to death by judicial override is ceremonial at best;” “engaging in extrajudicial factual investigations, by making findings of fact regarding matters as to which no evidence was presented, and by inappropriately inserting legal issues not raised by the parties, thereby abandoning her role as a neutral arbiter and becoming an advocate for defendants, her own judicial rulings, and her personal opinions;” and “questioning an attorney in her courtroom regarding his contributions to her political opponent’s campaign in a matter in which such contributions were not at issue and were not raised by any party.”  In the Matter of Todd, Final judgment (Alabama Court of the Judiciary December 3, 2021).
  • Based on the judge’s resignation from office and his agreement that he will never seek or accept a position involving service as a judicial officer in the state, the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct closed 3 matters against a judge who stipulated that (1) just over 1 minute into a hearing in 4 related civil protective order cases, he had ordered the petitioner to undergo a competence examination under Rule 11 of the rules of criminal procedure, which does not apply in civil matters; and (2) he had attempted to engage in a personal or extrajudicial relationship with a clerk, creating a work environment that made her feel uncomfortable and was offensive to her.  Inquiry Concerning Eisele, Order (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct November 17, 2021).
  • The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for a pattern of yelling at court staff and using profanity; the Commission also ordered the judge to complete a training course that addresses leadership and/or management skills and interpersonal skills with subordinates.  Carroll, Order (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct November 12, 2021).
  • Based on an agreement, the Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission publicly censured a judge for a verbal confrontation with 3 people about a parking space.  Re Karren, Letter (Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission January 21, 2022).
  • The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed an uncontested order of the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure involuntarily retiring a judge based on extensive and extraordinary delays in cases on his calendar and a mental and or physical disability that is or is likely to become permanent and that prevents or seriously interferes with, the proper performance of his judicial duties.  In re Berk, Order (D.C. Court of Appeals November 4, 2021), affirming.
  • Approving a statement of circumstances and conditional agreement for discipline, the Indiana Supreme Court barred a former judge from judicial service and publicly reprimanded him for allowing the coordinator of the drug court over which he presided to engage in activities in support of the judge’s re-election campaign during work hours and discussing the distribution of a campaign yard sign with a drug court participant in the courtroom and delivering a sign to the defendant.  In the Matter of Miller (Indiana Supreme Court January 21, 2022).
  • Because the respondent filed no exceptions, the Kansas Supreme Court accepted the findings and conclusions of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which were based on stipulations, but took no further action on the Commission’s recommendation that a former magistrate judge be publicly censured for giving access to nude and partially nude photos of himself to the complainant and the complainant’s wife on a social media dating website for couples, sending sexually revealing photographs of himself to the complainant’s wife, and requesting that the complainant’s wife send sexually explicit photos to him.  In the Matter of Clark (Kansas Supreme Court January 28, 2022). 
  • Rejecting the recommendation of the Judiciary Commission, the Louisiana Supreme Court imposed no discipline on a judge for remaining on the bench even though she was elected after turning 70, contrary to the state constitution.  In re Matthews (Louisiana Supreme Court January 28, 2022). 
  • The Michigan Supreme Court suspended a judge for 6 months without pay and publicly censured him for using sexually graphic language in conversations with female assistant prosecutors during breaks in a homicide trial and questioning them about their height and weight.  In re Morrow (Michigan Supreme Court January 13, 2022).
  • Accepting an agreement, the New Mexico Supreme Court publicly censured a judge for engaging in 2 ex parte phone calls on a Friday with the father of a woman who had just been arrested on multiple violent felonies; releasing the defendant on Saturday, contrary to the court protocol directing judges on call over the weekend not to release alleged violent offenders until the next business day; and failing to disclose the calls to the prosecution.  Inquiry Concerning Anaya (New Mexico Supreme Court December 13, 2021).
  • The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct removed a non-attorney judge from office for (1) posting, disseminating, and/or approvingly commenting on sexually charged content and images on Facebook that were demeaning to women or otherwise offensive and (2) using his Facebook account to publicly engage in fundraising for the National Rifle Association.  In the Matter of Stilson, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct January 7, 2022).
  • The Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for failing to enter orders within the required time frames in 2 cases; the judge accepted the reprimand.  Crozier (Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct January 10, 2022).
  • The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a former judge who had been arrested and charged with use of an abusable volatile chemical, specifically, “whippets” or nitrous oxide cartridges.  Public Admonition of Starowitz (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct December 8, 2021).
  • The West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission publicly admonished a former magistrate for soliciting donations for a charity in a newspaper ad.  Public Admonishment of Headley (West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission December 15, 2021).

Throwback Thursday

Posted on by

20 years ago this month:

  • Based on a stipulation for discipline by consent, the California Commission on Judicial Performance made public its private admonishment of a judge for (1) removing 2 children from their mother’s home without giving her notice or a reasonable opportunity to be heard; (2) holding proceedings to declare a child a dependent of the court without giving the father (who was in prison) adequate notice or a reasonable opportunity to be heard; (3) ordering that the legal custody of a child be transferred to the father without giving the mother notice or a reasonable opportunity to be heard and without making a finding of dependency; and (4) without giving the parents or grandparents notice or a reasonable opportunity to be heard, ordering that a child who was residing with her grandparents be placed in a non-relative foster/adoptive home and that there be no visitation by the parents or grandparents.  Inquiry Concerning Bishop, Decision and Order Imposing Private Admonishment (California Commission on Judicial Performance February 4, 2002).
  • Approving the recommendation of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the Florida Supreme Court publicly admonished a judge for, while presiding over a trial, soliciting communications from unnamed computer consultants and experts concerning technical issues relating to damages in the case without the involvement of the litigants or their attorneys.  Inquiry Concerning Baker, 813 So. 2d 36 (Florida 2002).
  • The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a judge for praising a jury’s guilty verdict and making gratuitous statements excoriating defense counsel.  In the Matter of Dillon, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct February 6, 2002).
  • The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct removed a non-lawyer judge for, after accepting checks from a client and employee of his private investigations business to use to pay the client’s bills while the client was in prison, endorsing and cashing the checks, converting the funds to his personal use, never paying any of the bills as requested, and refusing to return the funds despite repeated requests.  In the Matter of George, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct February 4, 2002).
  • Pursuant to the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline based on stipulated facts, the Ohio Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge for asking state highway patrol officers to keep the number of traffic tickets level so that he would not have to raise court costs.  Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Kiacz, 763 N.E.2d 590 (Ohio 2002).
  • The Oregon Supreme Court suspended a judge for 30 days without pay for driving while intoxicated.  Inquiry Concerning Norblad, 39 P.3d 860 (Oregon 2002).
  • Accepting an agreement for discipline by consent, the South Carolina Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a former magistrate for (1) attempting to warn a former narcotics officer about a sheriff’s department investigation and (2) holding a complainant in contempt of court without following proper procedures.  In the Matter of Rushton, 560 S.E.2d 418 (South Carolina 2002).
  • The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a court of appeals judge for allowing a bumper sticker endorsing a Democratic candidate for governor to remain affixed to the back of a vehicle bearing her official state judge license plates.  Public Admonition of Rodriguez (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct February 15, 2002).
  • The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a judge for (1) writing a blind letter of recommendation for a friend on official court letterhead and failing to control how the letter was used so that it appeared in a newspaper as a public endorsement of the friend’s candidacy for sheriff; and (2) although no criminal complaint had been filed and no case was pending before the judge, summoning 8 women to appear in her court, failing to admonish them about their constitutional rights, and acting as an ombudsman to attempt to mediate a dispute between feuding parties. Public Admonition of Velasquez (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct February 15, 2002).

State judicial discipline in 2021

Posted on by

In 2021, there were approximately 116 public state discipline proceedings involving judges or former judges.  Approximately 55% of the cases were resolved pursuant to an agreement.

  • 2 judges were removed from office.
  • 1 judge was involuntarily retired.
  • 28 judges publicly agreed to resign or retire and never serve in judicial office again.
  • 7 judges publicly agreed to resign or retire and never serve again and, in addition, to receive a public censure (2 judges) or a public admonishment (4 judges) or to pay attorney’s fees and costs for the investigation and prosecution of the case, which were almost $74,500.
  • 20 judges were suspended without pay as a final sanction for from 7 days to 2 years, although 5 of those suspensions were deferred in whole or in part subject to the judge committing no further misconduct and other conditions.
    • 1 judge was suspended without pay for 2 years with all but 6 months deferred subject to the judge completing a lawyers assistance monitoring program.
    • 1 judge was suspended for 18 months and agreed to complete an on-line ethics course.
    • 2 judges were suspended for 1 year.  1 of those suspensions was stayed after approximately 2 months conditioned on the judge complying with a counseling and training plan.
    • 1 judge was suspended for 10 months with her resumption of duties conditioned on her compliance with a professional development plan.
    • 4  judges were suspended for 6 months.  2 of those suspensions were stayed with education requirements.  1 also required the judge to complete anger management training.  1 also placed the judge on probation, prohibited her from serving in the family court division during her probation, and ordered her to consult with a mentor and apologize to each person she had wronged.
    • 3 judges were suspended for 90 days or 3 months.  1 of those suspensions also included a censure and required the judge to obtain additional judicial education and to apologize.  60 days of 1 of those suspensions was stayed conditioned on the judge attending a class on mindfulness, patience, or civility and consulting with a counselor or life coach about how to treat the professionals appearing in his court.
    • 4 judges were suspended for 1 month or 30 days.  1 of those suspensions included a requirement of additional training, a mentorship, and probation.
    • 1 judge was suspended for 2 weeks and placed on probation until the end of his term.
    • 1 judge was suspended for 10 days, fined $37,500, and publicly reprimanded.
    • 2 judges were suspended for 7 days.
  • 52 judges (or former judges in approximately 12 cases) received public censures (7), reprimands (24), admonishments (16), or warnings (3), with education or mentoring required in 13 of the cases.  1 of the censures also included a $1,000 fine.  1 of the reprimands also included a $2,500 fine.
  • 2 judges and 1 former judge were ordered to cease and desist certain conduct.
  • 2 former judges received informal adjustments.
  • 1 judge was suspended with pay for 30 days in a state that does not have the option of suspension without pay.
  • 1 former judge had his law license suspended for 180 days in attorney discipline proceedings for conduct while he was a judge.
  • 1 former judge will be suspended without pay for 6 years if he is elected or appointed to judicial office during the next 6 years.

See also State judicial discipline in 2020. 

Throwback Thursday

Posted on by

25 years ago this month:

  • The Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards publicly reprimanded a judge for his inappropriate conduct towards a juvenile during a court proceeding. Press Release (Berger) (Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards February 19, 1997).
  • Affirming the recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Performance, the Mississippi Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge and fined him $1,500 for, following ex parte communications, releasing 4 prisoners after they had begun serving their sentences. Commission on Judicial Performance v. Russell, 691 So. 2d 929 (Mississippi 1997).
  • The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly censured a judge who had presided in court while under the influence of alcohol. In the Matter of Giles, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct February 4, 1997).
  • Based on an agreed statement of facts and a joint recommendation, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly censured a judge who sent a letter on judicial stationery to another judge, the county district attorney, and the county assistant district attorney requesting a lenient sentence for a defendant the judge knew personally, questioned the competence of the probation official who had prepared the pre-sentence report, disparaged the police officer who had arrested and charged the defendant, urged the sentencing judge not to impose a jail sentence, and vouched for the defendant’s credibility and honesty; and drafted, signed, and circulated a petition that requested “compassion and mercy” for the defendant, listing his occupation as “town justice,” and mailing it in a town court envelop to the district attorney. In the Matter of Engle, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct February 4, 1997).
  • The West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission publicly admonished a judge who had conducted a trial in a civil action in August 1994, but did not render a decision until January 1997, after the Supreme Court of Appeals had issued a writ of mandamus directing him to render a decision. In the Matter of Irons (West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission February 18, 1997).

“An unpredictable and unforeseeable situation”

Posted on by

The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed an uncontested order of the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure involuntarily retiring a judge for extensive and extraordinary delays in cases and a mental and or physical disability that is or is likely to become permanent and that prevents or seriously interferes with the proper performance of his judicial duties. In re Berk, Order (D.C. Court of Appeals November 4, 2021), affirming order. The Commission commended “the public, including litigators and litigants, who brought their concerns regarding Judge Berk’s conduct to the Commission attention” and emphasized that “the Commission cannot serve its mission and protect the public interest without the kind of proactive disclosures, reporting, and cooperation here.” The judge’s misconduct did not directly relate to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the Commission noted that safeguards that might have quickly detected the judge’s problems during “in-person court proceedings were lacking or insufficient” in the “largely virtual environment” necessitated by the public health crisis, “creating “an unpredictable and unforeseeable situation.”

In May 2021, the Commission began receiving complaints about substantial delays by the judge and/or his failure to dispose of matters. In addition to possible violations of the code of judicial conduct, the complaints raised questions about medical, cognitive, confusion, memory, focus, attention, speech, or other issues that could be affecting the judge’s ability to perform his judicial duties. The judge went on administrative leave in June.

Following an investigation, the Commission found extensive and extraordinary delays throughout the judge’s calendar, including cases in which no written rulings were issued for as long as nine months. In some cases, no hearings were set, hearings were continued without resolution for months at a time, trials and hearings were completed but no decision was entered, or no initial status hearings was scheduled. The judge’s clearance rate was 54.4%, approximately 30-50% lower than other judges. The delays involved child custody, childcare, and child support matters, contested divorces, and other family-related matters. In some instances, the Commission noted actual or potential harm to litigants, including particularly vulnerable individuals such as children.

The delays appear to have noticeably increased in the late spring and summer of 2020, when the judge assumed responsibility for the domestic relations calendar, especially after the court resumed hearings in a virtual environment due to the pandemic. The delays significantly worsened in or around late fall 2020 and into 2021.

The Commission found that the judge had reason to believe that he was experiencing increased health issues that were interfering with his duties, including causing issues during court hearings as early as the fall of 2020. However, he did not disclose his medical condition to court leadership until approximately May 2021, request assistance, or notify court leadership of the extent of the delays. The Commission also found that other judges, including judges in leadership, and staff were aware of “red flags” about the judge’s performance but, although they took some action, “those steps were not sufficient to protect the public until after the Commission made inquiries and the judge agreed to take a pause in judicial responsibilities.” The Commission concluded that the challenges of the pandemic “led to a breakdown in the court’s internal processes that periodically assess judicial workloads and calendar activity.”

The Commission described the steps the court had taken to eliminate the judge’s backlog. In addition, to assure the public that these matters would be “addressed differently in the future,” the Commission explained that the court has reinstated internal processes that had been temporarily paused during the pandemic, will enhance oversight and monitoring, and will provide training and guidance on the importance of reporting to and transparency with the Commission if a judge has a medical issue that “may require monitoring, accommodations of disabilities, or action to avoid unnecessary challenges or harm to the public.”