- Judicial officers have an ethical obligation to understand technology, including artificial intelligence, and to take reasonable steps to ensure that any AI tools on which their judgments are based are used properly and within the confines of the law and court rules. Michigan Opinion JI-155 (2023).
- A judge may congratulate successful youth part participants with a handwritten note, but the note may not be included in a gift bag of commercially branded promotional items that will be given to the participants at an event celebrating their success. New York Opinion 2023-127.
- A judge may wear a rainbow pin or flag on the judge’s personal clothing and display similar pins, flags, or signs in the judge’s chambers. New York Opinion 2023-147.
- A judge may not authorize the court marshal to act as a conduit between dog breeders and donors who want to fund a court therapy dog for use with child victims and vulnerable adults. West Virginia Opinion 2023-29.
- A judge who unequivocally pledged during their campaign to, if elected, incarcerate offenders, exclude drug dealers from the community, ensure maximum sentencing of repeat offenders, and protect domestic violence victims is disqualified during their entire term from all criminal cases, all vehicle and traffic law matters, and cases in any court involving allegations of domestic violence or purported drug dealers. New York Opinion 23-158.
- A judge who presides over criminal cases may attend a softball game between the sheriff’s office and police department as long as their attendance is not promoted, advertised, or made a focal point during the game. Florida Opinion 2023-11.
- A judge may not serve as an officer or director of a not-for-profit community group organized to oppose proposed changes to a public park and may not engage in community outreach or fundraising on behalf of the group, but if they have a clear and direct personal interest at stake, the judge may donate to the group, publicly state their personal position on the proposed change, and engage in certain other public advocacy activities on their own behalf. New York Opinion 2023-114.
- A judge may serve as the administrator of a not-for-profit religious organization’s food pantry and prepare its funding applications, but may not personally sign them and must instead designate someone else to sign the applications. New York Opinion 2023-118.
- A judge may not permit a fraternal organization to use their likeness, image, or affiliation for any fund-raising purposes and should instruct the organization not to use their video interview at an event where one purpose is fundraising. New York Opinion 2023-121.
- Because some of the NAACP’s activities are clearly permissible for judges and some involve potentially controversial lobbying, advocacy, and litigation, a judge may be a member of the NAACP but may not serve as president of a local chapter. New York Opinion 2023-118.
- A judicial association may enter into a licensing agreement with a vendor to create and sell themed products to association members if the agreement is non-transferable and the association prohibits the vendor from using the association’s name in any advertising and from listing the association as a customer/client. New York Opinion 2023-116.
- A judge may attend generic cultural/holiday celebrations hosted by elected public officials when such events are free, open to the public, and paid for by government funds, not campaign funds. New York Opinion 2023-122.
- A judicial officer may not attend an inaugural dinner and ball celebrating a city’s new mayor. Connecticut Informal Opinion 2023-8.
- A judicial candidate may wear a shirt, hat, or other apparel that shows the URL of their campaign committee website even if the website includes options to donate and endorse the candidate as long as they do not personally direct attorneys and others to the website to make donations or show support. Florida Opinion 2023-12.
Monthly Archives: January 2024
Throwback Thursday
5 years ago this month:
- Accepting the findings and recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, the Alaska Supreme Court ordered that a judge be immediately placed on medical disability retirement for a disability that seriously interferes with her performance of judicial duties and that is or may become permanent; the judge had filed a non-opposition. In the Disability Matter Involving Greene, 435 P.3d 915 (Alaska 2019).
- Approving a second revised stipulation, the Florida Supreme Court suspended a judge for 90-days without pay, fined her $5,000, and publicly reprimanded her for failing to take reasonable steps to stay apprised of her financial circumstances, including failing to ask who paid for 3 trips she took with her husband and failing to verify the accuracy of her 2016 and 2017 financial disclosures, which did not report that the accommodations and other benefits on those trips were provided by the hotel. Ortiz (Florida Supreme Court January 29, 2019).
- Based on anagreement, the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission suspended a judge for 7 days without pay for leaving the scene of a vehicular accident. In re Roberts, Agreed order of suspension (Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission January 17, 2019).
- Based on the judge’s consent and admissions, the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline ordered that a judge resign and barred him from serving in judicial office based on his lack of knowledge and ability to handle the legal and administrative duties of his family court docket. In the Matter of Humke, Stipulation and order of consent to discipline (Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline January 11, 2019).
- Adopting the findings and recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, the New Jersey Supreme Court suspended a judge for 2 months for surreptitiously recording 3 meetings with her assignment judge and denying that she recorded 1 of the meetings. In the Matter of Gross-Quatrone, 200 A.3d 411 (New Jersey 2019).
- Granting a petition to accept a stipulation, the New Mexico Supreme Court ordered the permanent resignation of a judge based on her arrest for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs and failure to maintain a proper lookout and the resulting criminal proceedings. Inquiry Concerning Walker, Order (New Mexico Supreme Court January 31, 2019).
- Based on an agreement, the Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for delay in entering a final ruling in a domestic relations case, failing to promptly rule following a remand from the state supreme court, and failing to respond to notices from the Board. Weiss (Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct January 11, 2019).
Recent cases
- The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for making gratuitously demeaning statements to the mother during a hearing in a juvenile case. Kelliher, Amended order (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct December 28, 2023).
- The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for conducting a telephonic conference on the record in a criminal case with only the defendant’s attorney when the prosecutor was unaware of the telephone conference. LaSota, Order 22-377 (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct August 30, 2023), motion to reconsider denied (December 27, 2023).
- The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for repeatedly impugning a criminal defendant’s credibility and creating an appearance of pre-judgment as to disputed issues. LaSota, Order 22-264 (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct August 30, 2023), motion to reconsider denied (December 27, 2023).
- Approving a stipulation, the California Commission on Judicial Performance issued a severe public censure to a judge for being routinely absent from the courthouse without authorization or approval for at least 155 days in 2021 and 2022, including every Friday for almost 6 months, and for being absent 87 more days than his available vacation time. In the Matter Concerning Shore, Decision and order (California Commission on Judicial Performance December 13, 2023).
- Based on the judge’s waiver of his right to keep the letter confidential, the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission admonished a judge for (1) impatience and discourtesy toward criminal defendants and defense lawyers, (2) repeatedly disregarding the law regarding pretrial release and incarcerating defendants for failure to pay fines, fees, and costs, and (3) endorsing his wife’s political campaigns. Letter to LaSata (Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission December 12, 2023).
- Based on a stipulation and the judge’s agreement not to serve as a senior judge, the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline publicly reprimanded a former senior judge for failing to timely resolve and issue orders in a breach of contract case. In the Matter of Saitta, Stipulation and order of consent (Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline December 20, 2023).
- The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline barred a former judge from serving in judicial office for, while serving as the “on-call” justice of the peace on New Year’s Eve 2021/2022, consuming alcohol to the point of intoxication and approving 2 search warrant applications while intoxicated and appearing to be publicly intoxicated on other occasions. In the Matter of Goicoechea, Findings of fact, conclusions of law, imposition of discipline (Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline December 22, 2023).
- Accepting a stipulation based on the judge’s resignation and his affirmation that he 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; after being advised by the Commission that it was investigating a complaint about his prolonged absence from his judicial duties, the judge acknowledged that his physical health prevents him from performing his duties now and for the foreseeable future. In the Matter of Richardson, Decision and order (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct December 7, 2023).
- Accepting a stipulation based on the judge’s resignation and his affirmation that he 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; in a formal complaint, the Commission alleged that the judge had initiated a public argument with a female clerk from the county department of motor vehicles who was operating a DMV mobile office in the courtroom; repeatedly poked her on her shoulder with his finger; and made snide and/or otherwise discourteous remarks to her before complaining about her to her supervisors. In the Matter of Orzel, Decision and order (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct December 7, 2023).
- Granting a motion for determination based on the judge’s failure to file an answer to a formal complaint, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct removed a judge for (1) posting Nazi imagery to his Facebook page and (2) displaying on his Facebook page “likes” of other Facebook pages with images of scantily clad and/or partially naked women, many of whom were in sexually suggestive poses, and content that demeaned or sexually objectified women. In the Matter of Futrell, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct December 12, 2023).
- Based on a referee’s report following a hearing, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct removed a non-lawyer judge from office for directing that a court security camera system be included in a grant application without town board approval, causing his company to purchase and install the camera system without disclosure to the board and without any bidding, signing a voucher for payment to his company knowing that the invoice falsely included the cost of a higher priced camera system than the system he had installed, being deliberately deceptive with court and town officials, and using his court email account to seek payment to his company. In the Matter of Mercer, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct December 27, 2023).
- Granting a motion for summary determination based on the judge’s failure to file an answer to a formal complaint, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct removed a non-lawyer judge for (1) repeatedly asserting his judicial office with the police when they responded to a dispute at a service station; (2) making sexually charged comments to his co-judge and court staff and in the courtroom; (3) while on the record, publicly inquiring about employment with the police department; (4) making comments that gave at least the impression that he had prejudged the guilt of 3 criminal defendants appearing before him; and (5) making sexual and otherwise inappropriate comments on his public Facebook page, some of which referred to his judicial position. In the Matter of Hall, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct October 17, 2023).
- Adopting the recommendation of the Board of Professional Conduct, the Ohio Supreme Court suspended a judge for 1 year without pay and suspended him from the practice of law for 1 year for (1) coercing no-contest pleas in 2 cases, (2) aggressive questioning of a criminal defendant, (3) demeaning litigants and spectators in 2 matters, (4) holding a defendant in contempt to avenge “a minor slight,” and (5) providing a litigant in a federal case with the transcript from the litigant’s related matter before the judge, suggesting that the county prosecutor might look into misconduct by the federal prosecutor, offering to assist the litigant “in any way,” and consenting to his letter being sent to the state attorney general. Disciplinary Counsel v. Gaul (Ohio Supreme Court December 29, 2023).
- The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for failing to respond to a letter of inquiry and other correspondence from the Commission. Public Reprimand of Jimenez (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct December 20, 2023).
- The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a judge and ordered that he receive 3 hours of additional education for advertising his performance of wedding services using the regalia of his office, including images of himself in his judicial robes sitting on the bench. Public Admonition or Garcia and Order of Additional Education (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct December 20, 2023).
- Based on a settlement stipulation of a formal complaint, the Vermont Judicial Conduct Board permanently prohibited a former assistant judge from running for any elected office, either political or judicial, and from accepting any role in the Vermont Judiciary for (1) requesting and receiving compensation for time she did not perform any judicial duties and (2) failing to return approximately $4,800 she had been given to attend a conference that she did not attend. In re Duff, Public sanction (Vermont Judicial Conduct Board December 15, 2023).
- Based on a stipulated sanction of a formal complaint, the Vermont Judicial Conduct Board barred a former part-time judge from serving as a judicial officer in the state for committing 5 violations of the rules of professional conduct in his private law practice, including intentionally providing Disciplinary Counsel with misleading and inaccurate information about his billing practices. In re Cobb, Stipulated sanction (Vermont Judicial Conduct Boad December 15, 2023).
- The West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission publicly admonished a judge for failing to report suspected abuse and neglect of 2 minor children after issuing domestic violence protective orders for them. In the Matter of Jones, Public admonishment (West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission December 12, 2023).
Throwback Thursday
10 years ago this month:
- Approving a stipulation and the recommendation of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the Florida Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge for (1) making a public statement at a symposium about a criminal case pending before him; (2) writing a letter to a newspaper about the race for the state attorney’s office; and (3) criticizing the state attorney’s office while presiding over 5 criminal cases. Inquiry Concerning Cohen (Florida Supreme Court January 21, 2014).
- The Minnesota Supreme Court publicly censured a former tax court judge for failing to issue timely decisions in 6 cases, falsely certifying that he had no cases pending longer than 3 months after submission on his time sheets, and making false statements in 5 decisions about when the cases had been submitted. Inquiry Concerning Perez, 843 N.W.2d 562 (Minnesota 2014).
- Based on the presentment of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, the New Jersey Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a former judge for egregious legal errors while presiding over a criminal trial, including forcing the defendants to go to trial pro se after refusing their request for a public defender, prosecuting the case with the help of the arresting police officer, cross-examining the defendants, and finding them guilty based on testimony that he had elicited during his cross-examination. In the Matter of DiLeo, 83 A.3d 11 (New Jersey 2014).
- The West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission publicly admonished a judge for accompanying law enforcement officers executing a writ of seizure of personal property at the home of a father in a child support case. In the Matter of Aboulhosn (West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission January 31, 2014).
- Granting petitions for review filed by a complainant, the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted an order of the 9th Circuit Judicial Council publicly reprimanding a former judge for a racist and political e-mail and hundreds of other e-mails sent from his court e-mail account. In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct (Cebull), 751 F.3d 611 (U.S. Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability 2014).
The judicial high road
In a recent judicial discipline case, the Ohio Supreme Court acknowledged that the courtroom “is often a place for disagreement and argument, whether between the parties to a case or a party and the judge” but reminded judges to “recognize when they need to control such a situation and take the high road.” The Court found that the judge in the case had not done so in a “not cordial, to say the least” exchange with a defendant during an arraignment. Disciplinary Counsel v. Gaul (Ohio Supreme Court December 29, 2023).
In 2021, Arthur Smiley appeared before the judge by videoconferencing for arraignment on 2 counts of robbery. When the judge determined that he was going to set a $25,000 surety bond, Smiley said, “Thank you.” As the Court explained it:
From that point, the colloquy devolved into apathetic quips by Smiley that appeared to increasingly irritate [Judge] Gaul. Smiley continued to express indifference regarding the arraignment because he would be held in jail for other cases anyway. Gaul referred to Smiley, who is black, as “my brother” and told him, “This isn’t the drive-through window at Burger King, my friend. You don’t get it your way.”
As a result of the exchange, the judge announced that he was raising Smiley’s bond to $100,000. Smiley told the judge that he was making himself “look stupid * * * as a judge” by raising the bond because he was being held on other cases and could not be released anyway. In response, the judge found Smiley in contempt and sentenced him to 30 days in jail for the contempt. Toward the end of the arraignment, the judge retracted his decision to increase Smiley’s bond and reset the bond at $25,000.
Smiley appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the contempt and remanded the matter for the judge to make findings of fact to allow it to determine whether he had abused his discretion. On remand, the judge suggested to Smiley’s counsel that he would dismiss the contempt charge if Smiley apologized. Smiley did, and the contempt charge was dismissed.
The Court stated:
Judges—especially trial-court judges—deal with people of varying tempers on a near-daily basis, and a judge’s encountering a difficult person does not excuse the judge’s duty to exercise fair and impartial judgment and to treat that person with patience, courtesy, and dignity. Gaul’s interaction with Smiley did little to promote the public’s confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, because Gaul continued to engage with Smiley even though the main purpose of the hearing—the setting of bond—had been fulfilled. Gaul could have stopped interacting with Smiley after he set bond, but he chose not to. The evidence shows that as the arraignment continued, Gaul became increasingly irritated by Smiley’s cavalier attitude.
Conduct such as that exhibited by Smiley during the arraignment might inflame the passions of an ordinary person so as to cause the person to respond with equal vigor, but judges are not ordinary. Rather, they are held to the highest standards of professional behavior. . . . Ohioans expect patience from their judges. By stepping up (or down) to Smiley’s level and engaging with Smiley when he did not need to do so, Gaul prolonged a bad situation and made it worse. Gaul’s continued interaction with Smiley ultimately led to his finding Smiley in contempt. That unnecessary interaction demonstrated that Gaul’s role as an impartial arbiter in the matter had ended, resulting in prejudice to Smiley. In other words, but for Gaul’s continued engagement with Smiley, the contempt finding, although later reversed, would never have happened.
The Court suspended the judge for 1 year without pay and suspended him from the practice of law for 1 year for his treatment of Smiley, coercing no-contest pleas in 2 cases, aggressive questioning of a criminal defendant in 1 matter, demeaning litigants and spectators in 2 matters, and providing assistant to a litigant in a federal case who had been acquitted on related matters before the judge.
Throwback Thursday
20 years ago this month:
- Accepting the recommendation of the Judicial Tenure Commission based on a settlement and plea agreement, the Michigan Supreme Court publicly censured a former judge for grabbing a court employee and kissing her; rubbing her breasts for approximately 5 seconds in a second incident; and using a court computer to access sexually explicit websites during working hours. In re Ford, 674 N.W.2d 147 (Michigan 2004).
- Adopting the recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Performance, the Mississippi Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a former judge for seeking reimbursement from the state for bills that he never paid and depositing the funds into his personal bank account instead of paying the vendors. Commission on Judicial Performance v. Teel, 863 So. 2d 973 (Mississippi 2004).
- The Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Disciplined removed a former judge from office for conviction of a felony and held him ineligible to hold judicial office in the future; the judge had pled guilty in federal court to soliciting money in the performance of his judicial duties; soliciting payment of money from a partner in a law firm that had a substantial number of cases pending before him; and soliciting payment of financial support for his family and employment for himself after incarceration from an attorney in exchange for concealing the attorney’s role in the extortion payment to the judge. In re Jaffe, 839 A.2d 491 (Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline 2004).
- The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a part-time judge for failing to report lawyers in his law firm whom he knew were engaged in unethical and in some cases illegal activities and for participating in some of these activities. Amended Public Reprimand of Richard (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct January 28, 2004).
- Accepting the findings of the Judicial Conduct Commission, the Utah Supreme Court removed a judge from office for (1) contrary to statutory requirements, failing to hold adjudication hearings in child welfare cases in a timely manner; (2) holding 2 cases under advisement for over 2 months; and (3) filing a federal lawsuit against the office of the guardian ad litem that prevented him from performing his duties as a juvenile court judge for years. In re Anderson, 8S2 P.3d 1134 (Utah 2004).
Natural impulses and higher standards
Accepting an agreement, the New Mexico Supreme Court publicly censured a judge for allowing his daughter to use his chambers while she waited to testify in a criminal case in which she was the victim, advising the assistant district attorney about a jury instruction in the case, and admonishing him about having the defendant remanded to custody following the guilty verdict. In the Matter of Martin, Public censure (New Mexico Supreme Court November 13, 2023). The Court recognized that “when the family member of a judicial officer becomes enmeshed in the legal system, it can be stressful for everyone involved,” especially “when the family member is the victim of a violent crime. The natural impulse of parents is to provide comfort, reassurance, and protection for their children.” However, the Court noted that “judges unlike other parents are held to a higher standard.”
The judge’s daughter was the victim of an aggravated assault by use of a firearm. There was a 2-day jury trial in the case beginning on July 26, 2021. During the trial, the judge allowed his daughter to use his chambers to wait for her turn to testify.
The judge reviewed the proposed jury instructions for the case in the court’s electronic filing system. Based on his experience, the judge recognized a mistake of law in an instruction proposed by the assistant district attorney, Samuel Rosen. In a telephone conversation on the evening after the first day of trial, the judge advised Rosen that he should use the term “brandished a firearm” in his jury instructions rather than asking the jury to find that the defendant “pointed a firearm.” The next day, Rosten submitted an amended jury instruction stating that the defendant “brandished and/or pointed a deadly weapon” at the judge’s daughter.
The jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated assault by use of a deadly weapon and a special verdict finding that a firearm was used in the commission of the offense. The defendant was remanded to custody.
After the verdict, Rosen and his co-counsel were told that the judge and his daughter wanted to speak to them, and they went to a room down the hall from the courtroom. When they arrived, the judge admonished them, “Good thing he was remanded, otherwise I would have told you to go back in there and try again.”
Emphasizing that the public had limited access to the courthouse because the trial had occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court stated that the judge “inappropriately allowed his daughter to remain in his chambers until called to testify,” creating, if not an actual appearance of impropriety, “a potential for an appearance of impropriety.”
Further, acknowledging that the judge “believed that he was acting in his daughter’s best interest by pointing out the mistake” in the proposed jury instruction, the Court stated that it could not ignore that his call to the ADA created an appearance of impropriety.
The Court also concluded that the judge’s post-verdict “admonitions to the ADA created both an actual impropriety and an appearance of impropriety.” It stated: ”While we recognize that emotions may have been running high after the verdict, we again must counsel the judiciary that judges are held to a higher standard. . . . Due to the imbalance of power between a judge and a litigator, a judge must always promote confidence in the judiciary.”
Throwback Thursday
25 years ago this month:
- The Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission publicly admonished a judge for not acting for almost 6 months on a writ of mandamus issued by the Arkansas Supreme Court directing him to act upon a Freedom of Information Act request. Letter to Keith (Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission January 20, 1999).
- The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly censured a former judge and barred him from receiving assignments, appointments, or reference of work from any California state court for having a clandestine, intimate relationship with 1 of 3 co-defendants, continuing to preside over their cases, allowing the relationship to influence his actions, and engaging in numerous improper ex parte communications. Inquiry Concerning Trammell, Decision and order (California Commission on Judicial Performance January 5, 1999).
- Accepting an agreement between a former judge and the Commission on Judicial Conduct, the South Carolina Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a former judge for retaining compensation for marriages he performed. In the Matter of Brown, 512 S.E.2d 114 (South Carolina 1999).
- The Utah Supreme Court accepted a stipulation consenting to the implementation of order of the Judicial Conduct Commission publicly censuring a judge for driving a vehicle for several months knowing that the registration had expired. In re Dimick, Order (Utah Supreme Court January 22, 1999).
- The Utah Supreme Court accepted a stipulation consenting to the implementation of the order of the Judicial Conduct Commission publicly censuring a former judge for appropriating to her own use a $1,200 cash bail payment and failing to forward abstracts of reportable traffic violations to the drivers’ license division within 10 days of the conviction or plea held in abeyance; the judge had pled guilty to misusing public moneys and resigned. In re Chavez, Order (Utah Supreme Court January 13, 1999).
- The Washington Supreme Court publicly censured a former judge and suspended him from office until the end of his term for intentionally striking or pushing his wife, causing her to fall; the Court also ordered that the judge complete a domestic violence program before he could serve in any judicial capacity. In the Matter of Turco, 970 P.2d 731 (Washington 1999).
Using the courtroom for a campaign event
The Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for holding an event for his re-election campaign in his courtroom; the judge accepted the reprimand. Public Reprimand of Rosson (Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct November 15, 2023). The media were invited to the event, and the judge:
- Stood in front of his bench and accepted an endorsement from a lawyer,
- Announced an endorsement from another lawyer who was not present,
- Made a campaign speech in which he asked those who would see the press conference on television or elsewhere to vote for him, and
- Took election-related questions from media representatives, including questions about his opponent.
Noting that as an experienced judge with 36 years on the bench, the judge should have known that using his courtroom for a campaign event was improper, the Board found that he had “leveraged” his judicial office for his own “purpose, something the ethics rules prohibit.”
The spring 2023 issue of the Judicial Conduct Reporter has an article about prior cases in which judges have been disciplined for personal use of court resources in political or campaign activities, for personal tasks, for community activities, and for business and financial interests.
Judicial ethics and discipline 