Throwback Thursday

25 years ago this month:

  • Pursuant to the judge’s consent, the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications publicly admonished a judge for comments to the press on a pending investigation of allegations that over $8,000 was missing from the court probation department funds.  Admonition of Letsinger (Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications June 13, 1997).
  • The Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications ordered a former senior judge to cease and desist from making rude, undignified, and discourteous comments.  Inquiry Concerning Rohleder, Order (Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications June 12, 1997).
  • The Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications ordered a judge to cease and desist from touching court employees inappropriately, making inappropriate comments, and having pictures of nude women displayed on a computer screen in the courthouse; the Commission also ordered the judge to obtain counseling regarding sexual harassment and boundary violation issues.  Inquiry Concerning Litson, Order (Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications June 20, 1997).
  • The Kentucky Supreme Court suspended a judge for 30 days without pay for a publication distributed by her campaign that portrayed itself as something other than campaign literature and a campaign letter from her cousin that criticized her opponent for letting child abusers off easy.  Summe v. Judicial Retirement and Removal Commission, 947 S.W.2d 42 (Kentucky 1997).
  • The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct removed a judge from office for intervening on behalf of his daughter with law enforcement officers and another judge in 3 incidents.  In the Matter of Chase, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct June 10, 1997).
  • Accepting a judge’s stipulation consenting to the implementation of the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order of the Judicial Conduct Commission, the Utah Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge who had had a large malpractice judgement entered against him for conduct as an attorney prior to appointment to bench, had filed for bankruptcy, and had answered “no” on his application for judicial appointment to questions asking whether he had ever been or was currently a defendant in a malpractice suit and whether he was currently the subject of an investigation that could result in civil or criminal action.  Re Shumate, Order (Utah Supreme Court June 1, 1997).

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s