Obsession, fixation, intimidation, and retaliation

Based on the findings of a judicial conduct panel, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended a former municipal court judge for 3 years from eligibility for appointment as a reserve judge for a “pattern of obsessive conduct about whether [the court manager] liked him as a friend” and trying to intimidate her or retaliate against her for reporting him.  Judicial Commission v. Kachinsky (Wisconsin Supreme Court July 9, 2019).

The judge was the part-time, elected judge for the Village of Fox Crossing Municipal Court, which holds sessions approximately 3 Thursday evenings a month for 90-120 minutes.  In the spring of 2016, the judge hired M.B. as the full-time court manager.  The judge and M.B. shared a small office in the municipal building.  Even before M.B. was hired, she and the judge had been “friends” on Facebook; each had hundreds of friends on Facebook, including a number of mutual friends.  At the beginning of M.B.’s employment, they had occasional conversations about their personal lives, developed a friendship, and engaged in occasional joint activities outside of work.

Beginning in March 2017, however, their relationship became strained after “a couple of incidents that M.B. found concerning.”  First, in a public comment to a post on M.B.’s Facebook page, the judge stated that M.B. was “on her second honeymoon” at “an undisclosed location.”  M.B. informed him that this was incorrect, and he apologized.  A few days later, the judge hid behind a counter at the court office, and, when M.B. walked in, he popped up and shouted “roar,” startling M.B.  During that visit, the judge’s “loud and boisterous” conduct disturbed village employees.  In an e-mail after the visit, the judge told M.B. that he hoped his visit had made her day and that it was something he was “more than happy to do for my best friends.”  M.B. told the judge in an e-mail that “it would help her focus on her job if they kept their relationship work-related.”  In an e-mail in response, the judge agreed to minimize discussion of non-business matters during business hours but indicated that he wanted to continue to discuss their everyday personal lives.

After the judge sent numerous other e-mails to her about personal matters, M.B. filed a complaint with the village’s human resources manager.  In a meeting the next day, the human resources manager explained to the judge the concerns about his behavior and developed guidelines, including that no personal information about colleagues would be shared on social media, that all phone and e-mail communications would relate to business matters, and that the judge would only visit the office once a week.

However, the panel found, the judge “was upset as a result of the meeting and was determined to express his displeasure to M.B. and to reject any limitation on communications to work-related matters.”  The judge sent M.B. several e-mails that included personal matters, insisted that he needed to have a personal friendship with her, and invited her to participate in a non-work activity.

On 3 occasions, the judge went to the municipal court office, sat close to M.B.’s desk, facing her, and did nothing except tap his pen and make “cat noises;” on 1 visit, the judge “continued this extremely odd behavior for 45 minutes.”  During one of the visits, the judge told M.B. a story about a dog being raped and then repeated the story.

In a telephone call, the village manager and the village attorney explained to the judge his potential violations of the village’s policy prohibiting harassment in the workplace, advised him to maintain professional decorum at work, and told him to stop communicating with M.B. about personal matters.

Over the following weekend, the judge told M.B. in an e-mail that he wanted to “hit the reset button,” claiming that it had not been clear to him that she wished to avoid after-hours activities with him but that he now understood.  However, he also chastised M.B. for not telling him directly and said:

My main concern is that a “work only” discussion policy should not preclude normal “water cooler” discussion of things like the Packers, Badgers, child graduations, children having children, recent vacation adventures, etc.  I need to know what you consider to be “over the line.” . . .  Walking on eggshells during what should be relaxed casual conversations is not good for productivity or mental health.  Your ideas on this are welcome.

The judge also complained that M.B. had “defriended” him on Facebook and encouraged her to reverse that decision.

After that e-mail, the village manager sent the judge a letter pointing out that he had violated the village’s direction not to discuss the personal relationship with M.B. and reminding him that he was not to engage in any communications with her beyond work matters.

Approximately 2 weeks later, the judge sent M.B. an e-mail that, he acknowledged, “violate[d] every principle we have talked about regarding office conduct the last few weeks” but continued, “Feel free to report me to HR.  I feel spunky this morning.”  The judge sent her other e-mails about having “a beer or wine summit” and ending “the strict restrictions on no nonwork related discussions and replace it with use of respect and common sense.”

In an e-mail to the human resources manager in June 2017, the judge claimed that the incidents about which M.B. had complained were “minor” and that her unwillingness to accept his view of how their relationship should work was detrimental to the municipal court office.  He stated that he preferred not to work with “such a person any longer than possible,” suggested that the human resources manager advise M.B. to “give a little bit on the work-only thing,” and explained that the alternative was for him to terminate her employment.  In a subsequent e-mail, the judge told the human resources manager that, although he had not made a final decision on whether to fire M.B., she had until 5:00 p.m. that day to decide if she accepted his “rules” for their professional and personal relationship.  Later that day, the village attorney informed the judge that his conduct violated the village’s policy against harassment and that his threats to terminate M.B. constituted retaliatory conduct that, if carried out, would violate the law.

After receiving the letter, the judge “elevated his conduct.”  He posted to his Facebook page that “[t]he sh— is not over.  I might have an employee termination today.  Not mine.”  The panel found that, although “the post did not explicitly name M.B., the only conclusion a reader could draw was that M.B. was about to be fired because she was the only employee he supervised either at the municipal court or in his private law practice.”

On July 17, while alone with M.B. in the municipal court office, the judge lunged over her desk, knocking some items off and whispering to her:  “Are you afraid of me now?”  The panel found that the judge was attempting “to intimidate M.B. into acquiescing in his fixation on a personal relationship with her.”

That evening, the judge ran into something on his way out of the courtroom, and his arm began to bleed.  He used his pay stub envelop to stop the bleeding then left the blood-stained envelope on his desk in the office where M.B. could observe it.  The panel found that this “was an attempt either to intimidate M.B. or to elicit sympathy from her . . . , an intentional non-verbal communication that had nothing to do with work.”

In an e-mail later that evening, the judge told M.B.:  “[I]f you want to restore a happy workplace, the first step is to stand up on your own and not use the Administration as a crutch. . . .  I can overlook what I consider poor judgment in handling a situation.  I cannot tolerate a weakling unwilling to have free and open discussions with the boss (or insubordination).”

On July 21, the Judicial Commission notified the judge that it was investigating allegations against him and advised him to “scrupulously avoid retaliatory conduct or witness intimidation.”

On July 26, the village manager held another meeting with the judge about keeping his relationship with M.B. work-related.  After that meeting, the judge dropped a white flag he had fashioned from office supplies on M.B.’s desk and said, “Here you go, I surrender, you win.”

However, the Court stated, the judge “was far from ending his campaign.”  For example, on October 27, the judge wrote a letter to M.B. reprimanding her for forwarding to the village manager e-mails that the judge had written to her.  On November 2, in the presence of M.B. and the human resources manager, the judge mentioned Harvey Weinstein and Bill O’Reilly and stated loudly, “I don’t do that crap and you should get that through your thick head.”

The next day, the judge sent a letter to M.B. that stated:  “By this time next week some things are going to happen that will cause a lot of fire and fury at the Municipal Building.  No, I am not resigning.  Just be psychologically prepared.  Have a good weekend.”  M.B. and villages officials were so disturbed by that e-mail that the village police were notified.  When the police chief interviewed him about the e-mail, the judge giggled more than once.

On Saturday, November 25, the judge sent an e-mail scolding M.B. for ignoring a previous e-mail in which he had wished her and her family a happy holiday.  The e-mail also stated:  “Will not spend the next 1.5 years or 5.5 years working with someone who actively despises me.  I have told you this many times.  We are approaching the end of the line on this.”  The e-mail concluded that, “There was an allegation missing from the additional letter from the [Judicial Commission]” and a picture of a kitchen sink was attached.

The next day, the judge dropped off a reprimand letter alleging that M.B. had falsely stated that he was stalking or tracking her in her complaint to the village 6 months earlier.

On Saturday, December 23, the judge wrote another letter of reprimand to M.B. based on her alleged refusal to return his Christmas greetings and her failure to respond positively to his efforts to improve workplace rapport.  On his Facebook page, the judge posted a sad face emoji with:  “Len Kachinsky was feeling sad.  Few things are sadder than a co-worker who refuses to return a Merry Christmas greeting out of spite.”

Following additional e-mails and meetings, M.B. sought and received a harassment injunction against the judge.

Less than 2 weeks later, the judge left on his desk where M.B. would see it a poster with a picture of the village manager’s face and the caption:  “I am from the government and I am here to help you.  WWRD #notmetoo.”  The judge also posted on his desk facing M.B.’s desk a copy of a page from the village personnel manual, entitled “Sexual Harassment,” with the word “sexual” highlighted 7 times in yellow marker.  M.B. believed that the poster and the copy of the sexual harassment policy violated the terms of the harassment injunction.  The police were contacted, and the judge was arrested.

On July 11, the state filed a criminal complaint charging the judge with 1 count of felony stalking and 2 misdemeanor counts of violating a harassment injunction.  Shortly before the trial, the district attorney’s office dropped the misdemeanor counts.  A jury found the judge not guilty on the felony charge.

The judge’s primary argument was that the village officials did not have the authority to regulate his “supervision of a resistant employee in an effort to ‘restore a level of personal rapport,’” which he believed was “a legitimate and laudable objective that is necessary for a workplace to perform effectively.”  The Court concluded, however, that, regardless whether “he was legally obligated to abide by the directives given by representatives of the village, he was obligated by the relevant provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct to maintain high standards of personal conduct and to act in a manner that promotes the integrity of the judiciary.”  The Court explained:

We fail to see how staring at a court employee for 45 minutes while tapping a pencil and making cat noises constitutes the maintenance of high standards of personal conduct or promotes the integrity of the judiciary.  Indeed, it does just the opposite.  Serving the people as a judicial officer does not allow a judge to impose his/her every opinion about personal interactions on subordinate court personnel or to force those subordinates to be the judge’s personal friends.

Judges are entitled to ensure that their subordinate employees perform their work responsibilities in appropriate manners.  Judge Kachinsky’s pattern of obsessive conduct about whether M.B. liked him as a friend clearly passed well over the line and brought the municipal court he administered into public disrepute. . . .  The notoriety that resulted from his insistence that M.B. had to be not only his court clerk, but also his friend, certainly caused the residents of the Village of Fox Crossing who appeared in his court to question whether he had the temperament and stability to preside over their cases in a proper manner.

The Court stated that “M.B. was required to process case files and deal with the public as a manager of the municipal court, not to satisfy Judge Kachinsky’s personal opinion that employees must also be personal friends.”  The Court noted that his acquittal on the felony stalking charge did not mean that he was innocent of the ethical violations.

An article on “Professional boundaries in the courthouse” about other judicial discipline cases involving attempts by a judge to force a close personal relationship with a court staff member was published in the summer 2018 issue of the Judicial Conduct Reporter.

 

Willful ignorance, unreasonable credulity, and misappropriation

Two recent judicial discipline cases involved misappropriation of money – over $11,000 by a judge from a DWI fund in 1 case and over $265,000 by a judge’s friend from an estate in the second.

The New Jersey Supreme Court censured a former judge for directing that money from a municipal DWI fund be disbursed to himself without the required pre-approval from his assignment judge; the Court also permanently barred him from judicial office and ordered that he pay restitution of $11,995.85 to the state.  In the Matter of Corradino (June 5, 2019).  The Court’s order does not describe the judge’s misconduct; this summary is based on the presentment of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct.

To help municipal courts promptly dispose of DWI matters, a state statute creates a fund to defray the costs of additional court sessions needed to expeditiously address pending and backlogged DWI cases.  Acceptable expenditures include “payments to municipal court judges, municipal prosecutors and other municipal court personnel for work performed in addition to regular employment hours.”  Guidelines require written approval from the assignment judge of the vicinage in which a municipality is located prior to any disbursements from the DWI fund.

From 2009 through 2013 and in 2015, the judge, without advising his assignment judge, verbally directed the township treasurer to disburse funds “mostly to himself and, for a few years, to the municipal prosecutor and other municipal court personnel.”  The judge received between $647 to $3,001 from the DWI fund in each of those years.

The Committee noted that the judge “has asserted, at various times, inconsistent defenses,” for example, that he did not receive the annual memorandum about the DWI fund or the related guidelines, that he received them but failed to read them, and that he started reading but stopped because he “mistakenly believed he was already sufficiently educated.”  The judge also claimed that “the checks and balances of the court system should have earlier detected and more explicitly alerted him to his procedural noncompliance. . . .”  The Committee rejected those  defenses.

The Committee also concluded that the judge’s “assertion that he would have been entitled to receive at least some of the DWI Fund monies if he had filled out the appropriate form is not supported by the evidence,” noting that there was no evidence that the judge held special sessions or that his court had a backlog requiring special sessions.  The Committee also stated that the extra work the judge claimed he performed outside of court, such as legal research and drafting opinions, would not qualify as an acceptable expenditures from the DWI fund.  “More importantly,” the Committee stated, the judge should not have “usurped” the assignment judge’s role in determining “what would qualify as a compensable event under the DWI Fund Guidelines.”

The Committee concluded that the judge’s “purported lack of willfulness or intentionality” was not a sufficient basis to withhold discipline.

Respondent, by virtue of his judicial office, was duty-bound to know and adhere his conduct to the rules and statutes that govern the municipal court, including the strictures pertaining to the operation of the DWI Fund and the attendant requirements for receipt of expenditures from same. . . .  Willful ignorance of these strictures cannot reasonably serve as a defense to Respondent’s unauthorized receipt of state funds.

* * *
Based on a joint statement of circumstances and conditional agreement for discipline, the Indiana Supreme Court suspended a judge without pay for 45 days for appointing an unqualified friend as trustee of a trust and personal representative of a related estate, failing to disclose their friendship and financial relationship, and “failing to act promptly when faced with mounting evidence of the friend’s mismanagement and embezzlement of the funds entrusted to him.”  In the Matter of Freese, Per curiam opinion (Indiana Supreme Court June 4, 2019).

The judge has known Stephen Scott since about 1990, having worked with him in the county prosecutor’s office where Scott supervised adult protective services.  The judge lunched regularly with Scott and considered him one of his closest friends.

In 2004, Scott needed $122,400 to buy a home but had poor credit after a bankruptcy.  The judge used his line of credit to lend Scott the funds.  On January 13, 2005, they executed and recorded a mortgage in that amount, and Scott gave the judge a promissory note.

17 days later, the judge appointed Scott as trustee over the Herbert Hochreiter Living Trust.  None of the parties objected; the judge never disclosed his financial arrangement with Scott.

Later in 2005, Hochreiter died, and an estate was opened with an estimated $2.3 million in real and personal property.  On October 24, the judge appointed Scott as personal representative of the estate.  None of the parties objected; the judge did not disclose his financial arrangement with Scott.

On June 12, 2007, when the estate had been pending for nearly 2 years, the judge advised Scott that a final report and accounting was due.  Although the judge granted Scott’s request for a 180-day extension, Scott never filed a final report and accounting.  Through 2009, Scott repeatedly disregarded the judge’s directives to file accountings in the 2 cases.  In December 2009, Scott filed a partial, defective trust accounting and then sought an extension to January 29, 2010.  The judge granted the extension over the objection of a beneficiary who was concerned that gold bars might be missing from the trust and that Scott had disregarded accounting requirements from the beginning.

In January 2010, Scott asked to withdraw as trustee.  The beneficiaries objected to Scott resigning without submitting a complete accounting and filing tax returns and other legal documents.  The judge gave Scott 30 days to respond to the objection.

Scott relocated to Florida and never responded.

The Court found that, from August 2010 through July 2012, the judge “had multiple indications of Scott’s poor performance:  summonses sent to Scott were returned to sender;” Scott’s counsel reported that Scott was unresponsive and that the trust checking account contained only $8.27 and its savings account had been closed when it should have $50,000 to $60,000 in cash; and a beneficiary “filed a detailed objection and multiple rules to show cause or contempt citations against Scott.”  The Court also found that the judge “‘took no action or minimal action’ on those reports.”  The judge did leave Scott a phone message when Scott was living in Florida that stated “he was concerned that Scott was behaving bizarrely, and that he ‘would never have thought [Scott] would have stolen anything.’”

On July 31, 2012, when the cases had been pending nearly 7 years, the judge ordered Scott to appear in person and bring all financial records to a show cause hearing in September.  The hearing was later rescheduled to November, but Scott failed to appear.  The judge held him in contempt and found that he had permitted substantial amounts of money to be removed from the trust for non-trust purposes.

In January 2013, after a damages hearing, the judge entered judgment against Scott for nearly $580,000, finding that (1) between September 2007 and August 2011, there were disbursements totaling $140,550 from trust accounts to Scott’s personal accounts, plus another $101,217 in wire transfers or cash withdrawals not corresponding to legitimate disbursements and (2) in January 2010, $16,800 was transferred from estate accounts to Scott’s personal account, and the estate’s remaining bank balance of $6,517.08 was taken by unexplained cash withdrawal.  The Court also held that the amounts directed to Scott’s accounts should be trebled as punitive damages, for a total judgment, including the remaining un-trebled sums, of $579,784.08.

The judge never referred those findings to the local prosecutor or to the U.S. Attorney.  However, in 2017, Scott pleaded guilty to federal charges related to his embezzlement.  The stolen funds remain unrecovered.

The Court noted that the judge’s misconduct was mostly negligent, not willful, and involved 1 case, not “systemic neglect.”  However, it emphasized that the judge’s “misconduct ultimately enabled a massive theft.”  It held that the judge violated the duty to make “appointments . . . impartially and on the basis of merit” because Scott “lacked fiduciary experience and had been bankrupt recently enough to have poor credit.”  The Court noted that, although, “subjectively, the Judge trusted Scott, as his loan shows,” “objectively, Scott was utterly unqualified to be entrusted with a third party’s money; appointing him seems to have been driven by friendship, not merit.”  In addition, the Court concluded, “that friendship clouded the Judge’s objectivity through seven years of warning signs—making him unreasonably credulous of, and lenient towards, Scott in the face of growing evidence of serious financial misconduct.  If not for the Judge’s inaction, Scott’s theft likely could have been largely prevented.”

 

Deteriorating relationship

Accepting her resignation, the Colorado Supreme Court publicly censured a former court of appeals judge for (1) disclosing to an intimate, non-spousal partner the vote of a court of appeals division on a case prior to the issuance of the decision and (2) using inappropriate racial epithets in communications with her intimate partner.  In the Matter of Booras (Colorado Supreme Court March 11, 2019).  In March 2018, the Court had granted the request of the Commission on Judicial Discipline to suspend the judge with pay pending the disciplinary proceedings.  The judge resigned after the Commission recommended her removal.

In 2007, the judge began a 10-year relationship with a man whom she met online (“J.S.”).  J.S. told the judge that he was divorced and living in Denver, although the judge later learned that he was married and living in California.  They did not see each other frequently, but they communicated often, and the judge described their relationship as “intimate” and believed it would lead to marriage.

By early 2017, however, “the relationship was deteriorating, and Judge Booras had good reason to distrust J.S.”

On February 21, 2017, the judge and other judges in a division of the court of appeals heard oral argument in a case about the extent to which a state commission was required to consider public health and the environment in deciding whether to grant permits for oil and gas development.

The next morning, the judge sent an e-mail to J.S. that said:

We had an oral argument yesterday re: fracking ban where there was standing room only and a hundred people in our overflow video room.  The little Mexican is going to write in favor of the Plaintiffs and it looks like I am dissenting in favor of the Oil and Gas Commission.  You and Sid [a colleague of J.S.] will be so disappointed.

“The little Mexican” was a reference to one of Judge Booras’s colleagues, “a Latina who would ultimately write the opinion for the majority in that case.”  Judge Booras wrote the dissent.

At some point in 2018, J.S.’s wife contacted the judge, and the judge told her about the affair. Shortly thereafter, J.S. provided The Denver Post, the chief judge of the Court of Appeals, the governor, the Commission on Judicial Discipline, and counsel for the plaintiffs in the case several communications from the judge.

The Court found that the judge had disclosed confidential information — the court’s vote in the case — to a third party.  The Court also found that the judge “had used an inappropriate racial epithet in communicating with J.S.,” noting that it was not the first time as she had referred to her ex-husband’s new wife, a woman of Navajo descent, as “the squaw” in an e-mail to J.S a year earlier.

The Court held that the judge’s “use of an inappropriate racial epithet directed at one of her colleagues” and her disclosure of confidential information “obviously impaired harmony and trust among her co-workers . . . .”   The Court emphasized that the judge’s “relationship with the colleague at whom her ‘little Mexican’ comment was directed” was particularly affected, noting that the other judge had been “justifiably shocked and deeply hurt by Judge Booras’s comments” and that a close working relationships with other judges is “integral to a collaborative decision-making body” like the court of appeals.  The Court also explained that “knowledge of Judge Booras’s racially inappropriate comments could understandably have caused concern among parties of diverse backgrounds, and particularly those of Latino and Native American ancestry, who inevitably would have appeared before Judge Booras were she to have returned to the court of appeals.  The judicial system cannot function properly if public confidence in a court is eroded in this way.”

The judge argued that “a judge’s communications with an intimate partner should be given First Amendment protection unless the speech ‘violates a specific narrowly-tailored rule of judicial conduct or falls within an ordinary exception to the First Amendment.’”  Rejecting that argument, the Court held that “inappropriate racial epithets and derogatory remarks are not matters of legitimate public concern warranting First Amendment protection.”  The Court also concluded that any First Amendment interests “are outweighed by the state’s countervailing interests.”

 

Judicial responsibility:  Reasonable measures, confrontation, and supervision

One of the features of the high ethical standards to which judges are held is that sometimes judges get in trouble for something someone else did.

For example, a Florida judge was sanctioned for submitting financial disclosure reports for 2016 and 2017 that failed to disclose 3 free trips she had taken with her husband — even though she had not known the trips were free and even though the reports had been completed by her husband, who managed their family finances.  The judge and her husband had received free accommodations from a hotel chain, allegedly as part of an illegal compensation scheme for her husband’s assistance with permitting problems while he was director of the Miami Beach Building Department.  The judge was held responsible for the inaccurate reports because she failed to take reasonable steps to stay apprised of her financial circumstances, failed to ask who paid for the trips, and failed to verify the accuracy of the reports despite certifying to their veracity when she signed them.  Pursuant to a stipulation, she was suspended for 90 days without pay, fined $5,000, and publicly reprimanded.  Ortiz (Florida Supreme Court January 29, 2019).  (The Court had rejected 2 prior stipulations that imposed less severe sanctions.)

A New Mexico judge was sanctioned, in part, for receiving at his court e-mail address numerous e-mails from his family members, particularly his cousin, that were offensive, degrading, pornographic, racist, and sexist.  The judge testified that, after he received the first inappropriate e-mail, he told his cousin, “Cuz, you got to stop this,” and that he told family members over and over again to stop sending e-mails to his judicial e-mail address, but they continued to use that address.  In its findings, the Judicial Standards Commission noted that the judicial information division had instructed the judge how he could put an end to the e-mails, but he had not followed their instructions.

The Commission stated:

The Respondent maintained his innocence throughout the entirety of the inquiry by stating that he only received the e-mails and should not be punished for merely being a recipient.  His position is that his relatives sent him completely inappropriate sexual, derogatory, racist, and sexist e-mails to his judicial e-mail, that he provided to them, that he told them to quit and they didn’t, so it is their fault even though Respondent could have stopped them by changing his judicial e-mail but he didn’t want them to feel like they were the bad guy.

The Commission concluded:

It is far beyond negligent, and not the result of mere carelessness or lack of computer skills, that Respondent was unwilling to stop his relatives from sending him offensive e-mails of a sexual, racist, sexist, derogatory nature over a period of many years. . . .  The Respondent’s behavior in not confronting his family members and stopping the e-mails is offensive and shows that the Judge was indifferent to the impact of his actions on his reputation and integrity and the impact on the reputation and integrity of the judiciary as a whole.

Adopting the Commission’s findings, the New Mexico Supreme Court ordered the now-former judge never to hold judicial office in the state.  In the Matter of Castaneda, Order (New Mexico Supreme Court February 12, 2018).

A California judge was sanctioned for his testimonial published on a business’s web-site identifying the author as a superior court judge and including a photograph of the judge in his judicial robe.  The judge did not authorize the use of his title or provide the photograph or authorize its use or even know the photograph would be used.  However, neither did he review the final text of the testimonial or instruct the business not to use his judicial title and photograph in judicial robes or even ask how his comments would be used or where they would be published.

The judge had retained the Redd Group to survey voters about a local attorney’s judicial campaign.  After the election, the judge called David Cooper, an employee of the Redd Group, to compliment him on the survey results.  Cooper asked if he could use the judge’s comments as a testimonial for the Redd Group.  The judge agreed.  The testimonial, published on the Redd Group web-site, stated:

I was helping a fellow attorney run for county judge.  Our mail went out ahead of schedule and The Redd Group accommodated for our poll to be done accordingly with many more respondents than were promised.  We got the detailed results in less than 24 hours.  I recommend the Redd Group for all your polling needs.  Excellent work! – Steven C. Bailey

The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly censured the now-former judge and barred him from seeking or holding judicial office for this and other misconduct (see also  discussion below).  Inquiry Concerning Bailey, Decision and order (California Commission on Judicial Performance February 27, 2019).

* * *
Several judges have been sanctioned for content on their Facebook pages posted by others to whom they had delegated the task without sufficient oversight.  For example, the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct admonished a judge for Facebook posts advertising a school supply drive, soliciting donations for an individual, and advertising his donation of a rifle to a charitable raffle — even though a member of his judicial staff handled his Facebook page, many posts were made without his prior authorization, and he was often unaware of what appears on his page.  Public Admonition of Metts (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct October 3, 2018).  Similarly, the Texas Commission reprimanded a judge for campaign advertisements for other candidates posted on his Facebook page, in addition to other misconduct — even though he had not authorized the posts and did not know about them until he received the Commission’s inquiry.  Public Reprimand of Lopez (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct June 6, 2018).

Unauthorized and inappropriate posts have also been a problem on judicial campaign Facebook pages.

For example, the Florida Supreme Court removed a judge for criticism of her campaign opponent for representing criminal defendants on a Facebook page that was created by an electioneering communications organization formed by her campaign consultant.  Inquiry Concerning Santino, 257 So.3d 25 (Florida 2018).  The Court held that the judge’s actions “—individually and through her campaign, for which she was ultimately responsible—unquestionably eroded public confidence in the judiciary.”  The Court emphasized the finding of the hearing panel that nothing in the code of judicial conduct permitted, “Santino to delegate to her campaign manager the responsibility for written materials created or distributed by the campaign.”

The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline reprimanded a former judge for a photoshopped picture of herself and an actor that her campaign manager had posted on her campaign Facebook page, which misled the public that “the Rock” had endorsed her campaign, and for her subsequent comment on the post:  “I’m ‘almost’ taller than him.  Almost.”  In the Matter of Almase, Findings of fact, conclusions of law, and imposition of discipline (Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline October 22, 2018).  The Commission found that the judge had not taken reasonable measures to ensure that her campaign representatives complied with the code of judicial conduct, noting her contract with her campaign manager did not contain any restrictions on the posting of social media materials, such as obtaining prior approval from the judge, that the judge did not discuss with her campaign representatives the prohibitions in the code, and that the judge failed to properly supervise her campaign representatives.  The Commission took the “opportunity to remind judicial candidates that campaign-related social media platforms, such as Facebook, maintained by a campaign committee or others, do not insulate them from the strictures of the Code.”

* * *
The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a former judge for publicly disclosing his candidacy for sheriff without resigning and initially refusing to disclose to the Commission the identity of the individual who took his campaign Facebook page live.  Barth, Order (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct February 14, 2019).

The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly censured a now-former judge and barred him from seeking or holding judicial office for permitting a campaign coordinator to use his judicial title on the Facebook page for his campaign for attorney general and in posts on her law firm’s Facebook page promoting his candidacy, in addition to other misconduct (see also discussion above).  Inquiry Concerning Bailey, Decision and order (California Commission on Judicial Performance February 27, 2019).

In 2016, Martha Romero, the judge’s Southern California Campaign Coordinator, created the “Judge Steven Bailey” Facebook page for the judge’s campaign for state attorney general.  (Judges in California are allowed to run for another office if they take a leave of absence; the judge’s failure to take a leave of absence was another grounds for his discipline.)  In November and December 2016, several posts on the page promoting his campaign referred to the judge by his judicial title.

Rejecting the judge’s argument that he cannot restrict the First Amendment rights of others, the Commission agreed with the masters’ finding that “the judge had an obligation to take some action to prevent the improper use of his title in connection with campaign communications and events, even if it was just to instruct Romero to ensure that the Facebook page did not refer to his judicial title and position” because she was a coordinator for and “very involved” in his campaign.  The Commission also agreed that, because the standard for prejudicial conduct assumes that an objective observer is familiar with the facts, “the judge’s failure to supervise a campaign staffer and take any measures to guard against impermissible use of his judicial title would be considered prejudicial to public esteem for the judiciary in the eyes of an objective observer,” rejecting the judge’s argument that “the public would have no way of knowing if he asked Romero not to use his title.”

Romero also maintained a Facebook page for her law firm, the Romero Law Firm.  In a post on that page, Romero included photos of the judge and wrote, “My friend Judge Steven Bailey is running for California Attorney General 2018,  He is not a politician.  Please Help us!” and “Judge Steven Bailey.  Candidate for Attorney General 2018.  He will be the next Attorney General!!!  Please repost.  We need to win this!!”

The Commission acknowledged that the judge “could not force Romero to edit her posts about him or to avoid using his judicial title in future posts” but stated that he could “have asked her to modify her posts to be in compliance with his ethical obligations.”  Rejecting the judge’s argument, the Commission concluded that “Romero’s First Amendment rights are not implicated by requiring the judge to ask her to comply with a request to remove the Facebook posts.”

Small town friendships

Defining when a judge’s relationship with an attorney or litigant is close enough to raise ethical issues is one of the perpetual issues in judicial conduct, and it was presented twice in the recent case Inquiry Concerning Bailey, Decision and order (California Commission on Judicial Performance February 27, 2019).

One of the grounds for the sanction was that the judge had ordered defendants in 5 cases to use an alcohol monitoring service without disclosing that his son worked for the company and that the owner was a friend.  With respect to the judge’s relationship with the owner of the monitoring company (Charles Holland), the California Commission on Judicial Performance emphasized several factors that required disclosure:

  • Prior to taking the bench, the judge had represented Holland,
  • Holland had referred clients to the judge prior to his taking the bench,
  • Holland had been to the judge’s home,
  • Holland had attended strategy meetings for the judge’s judicial campaign, and
  • The judge was one of Holland’s Facebook friends.

The Commission stated that, even if it accepted the judge’s characterization of the relationship as “more professional than social,” he and Holland were more than members of the same professional organization and had contact outside professional events.  The Commission concluded that, “[e]ven if each of these facts taken alone did not require disqualification, . . . the totality of these circumstances was reasonably relevant to disqualification and required disclosure.”

A second ground for the sanction was the judge’s appointment of an attorney (Bradley Clark) as a special master without disclosing that Clark personal friend.  The Commission emphasized several factors:

  • The judge and Clark socialized together, sometimes with their spouses,
  • The judge received gifts from Clark,
  • The judge’s nephew was employed by Clark, and
  • The judge officiated over Clark’s wedding.

The special masters in the disciplinary proceeding had found that the appointment was not misconduct because Clark was qualified and, therefore, it had not been proven that the appointment was based on the friendship, rather than competence.  The master also found that disclosure was not necessary because most members of the “small legal community” where the judge sat probably knew about the relationship.  The Commission deferred to the finding about the appointment, but found that the judge did have a duty to disclose the relationship “regardless of the size of the community.”  It explained:

By their terms, the canons impose uniform statewide standards.  Whenever an assigned case involves a party the judge “knows,” the judge must be particularly vigilant to ensure the appearance and reality of independence and impartiality.  The situation may arise more frequently in a small town than a major metropolitan area, but the judge’s ethical duties are the same irrespective of population statistics.

The risk of applying a different disclosure standard in a small community based on the assumption that the parties and the attorneys know the judge’s relationships “is that there may be someone involved in the proceeding who, in fact, does not know about the relationships.” . . .  Moreover, the purpose of disclosure is not only to inform the attorneys and parties of information that may be relevant to disqualification but to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

The fact that there was no objection from the attorneys . . . did not relieve the judge of his obligation to disclose.  There is no evidence that the attorneys and parties were aware of the extent of the judge’s relationship with Clark at the time the judge made the appointment.

A third ground for the sanction, not related to friendships, was the judge’s comment to 2 other judges and an administrative analyst in the courthouse that gay men are “snappy” dressers.  The Commission found that statement was misconduct even though the remark “did not perpetuate invidious or hateful stereotypes.”

As observed by the masters, the judge’s comments “reflect stereotypical attitudes about gay men.”  It is improper for a judge to make remarks that reflect stereotypes based on sexual orientation, whether negative or positive.  We agree with the masters that “[s]uch remarks indicate that the speaker has preconceived ideas about a particular group, a characteristic that is contrary to the qualities of impartiality and propriety required of judges by our Code of Judicial Ethics.”

The judge had made the comment in response to a compliment by another judge about his outfit in an open office area in the court’s administration building:  he explained that he had bought the outfit in France, that the salesperson who put it together for him was gay, and that he knew it looked good because gay men are “snappy” dressers.

The other grounds for the sanction were that the judge had (1) allowed a business to use his testimonial on its web-site without assuring that it did not use his judicial title; (2) received improper gifts from Court Appointed Special Advocates, an attorney he had appointed as a master, and a law school; (3) failed to accurately report travel-related payments or reimbursements for attending judicial education programs; (4) run for California Attorney General without taking a leave of absence and then using his judicial title to raise funds for and promote his campaign; (5) failed to file a candidate intention statement until after his campaign had received campaign contributions, in violation of the Political Reform Act; and (6) permitted a campaign coordinator to use his judicial title on the Facebook page for his campaign for Attorney General and in posts on her law firm’s Facebook page promoting his candidacy.  The Commission publicly censured the now-former judge and barred him from seeking or holding judicial office.

Complaining about “a continuous onslaught of allegations,” the judge had blamed the presiding judge and the “toxic environment in the El Dorado Superior Court” for the charges against him.  However, the Commission emphasized  that it was the judge’s “improper conduct that is the basis of this inquiry, regardless of the motivations of those who brought forth the allegations.  There is no evidence that a toxic environment in the court or any animosity between Judge Bailey and [the presiding judge] resulted in misinformation being provided to the commission or inaccuracies in the evidence presented against the judge.”

 

Insubordination and lack of candor

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 what she was doing when she got caught.  In the Matter of Gross-Quatrone, Order (New Jersey Supreme Court January 24, 2019).  The Court does not describe the judge’s conduct; this summary is based on the Committee’s presentment.

The judge’s law clerk for the 2015/2016 term began on August 4, 2015.  That clerkship “ended abruptly” on Friday December 10 after the law clerk complained to the county human resources supervisor and the trial court administrator about the judge’s abusive treatment.  The following Monday, County Assignment Judge Bonnie Mizdol met with Judge Gross-Quatrone to discuss the removal of her law clerk and related issues.  Judge Gross-Quatrone acknowledged that she had told the law clerk she considered the clerk’s performance to be deficient, but denied any abusive treatment.

Judge Gross-Quatrone attempted to record this meeting with Judge Mizdol surreptitiously on her cellular telephone although she claims that attempt failed and that there is no recording.

On the morning of December 21, Judge Mizdol scheduled a management meeting in her chambers to discuss providing Judge Gross-Quatrone with administrative support.  She invited Judge Gross-Quatrone, Trial Court Administrator Laura Simoldoni, the family division presiding judge, and the division manager.  Judge Mizdol denied Judge Gross-Quatrone’s request to have her secretary attend the meeting as “her witness,” but agreed to meet privately before the meeting.

During her private meeting with Judge Mizdol, Judge Gross-Quatrone repeated her request to have a “witness” at the meeting or, alternatively, that the meeting take place in a courtroom where it could be recorded; Judge Mizdol denied both requests.  Without Judge Mizdol’s knowledge, the judge recorded this meeting on an Olympus digital voice recorder hidden in her purse.

Judge Gross-Quatrone also recorded the management meeting that followed without the knowledge of the other participants.  The other participants became aware of the judge’s secretive recording when Simoldoni noticed a red light “beaming” from the top of the judge’s purse.  Simoldoni reached into the purse, retrieved the judge’s digital recorder, and pressed the “stop” button.  Simoldoni asked the judge if she was recording the meeting, and the judge replied:  “No!  It was a gift from my parents.  I’m not taping the meeting.  I don’t know how this thing works.”  The judge reiterated her denial when questioned by Judge Mizdol.  In response, Simoldoni replayed a portion of the recording that revealed that the judge had, in fact, recorded the meeting.

Judge Gross-Quatrone demanded the return of her digital recorder, but Simoldoni declined to return the recorder before speaking with counsel to the Acting Administrative Director of the Courts.  The meeting ended shortly thereafter.

Judge Gross-Quatrone requested and was permitted a private meeting with Judge Mizdol.  Judge Mizdol, after confirming that the judge was not also recording that meeting, advised the judge that her conduct was “irretrievable” and constituted a “significant breach of trust.”  The judge maintained that she had done nothing wrong and reiterated her request for the return of her recorder.

Over the next several hours, the judge telephoned Judge Mizdol at least twice and the acting administrative director once seeking the return of her recorder.   In response, Judge Mizdol advised the judge that she would advise the judge of the status of her recorder at that time after hearing from the counsel’s office that afternoon

Judge Gross-Quatrone telephoned Simoldoni and threatened to call the police if she did not return the recorder.  The sheriff’s office received a telephone call from Judge Gross-Quatrone’s courtroom asking about the telephone number for emergencies.  In response, Sergeant Gabriel Soto conducted a ”security check” of the judge’s courtroom and chambers area.  The judge reported to Sergeant Soto that Simoldoni had taken her “personal property” without her permission and had refused to return it.  Sheriff’s Lieutenant James Hague, at Sergeant Soto’s request, went to the judge’s chambers.  The judge recounted for Lieutenant Hague the events leading up to Simoldoni’s retrieval of her recorder, which the judge characterized as a “theft,” and said she wanted to file a report with the police department.

Simoldoni, with the requisite administrative approvals, made a copy of the contents of the judge’s recording and released the recorder to the sheriff’s department that afternoon.  A sheriff’s officer returned it to the judge that same day.

Judge Gross-Quatrone was transferred following these incidents.

There were 3 files on the judge’s recorder:  a recording of the judge saying “testing, testing, one, two, three, testing, testing;” a second that was blank; and the recording of the judge’s private meeting with Judge Mizdol and subsequent management meeting.  The Committed noted that the judge’s evident testing of the recorder contradicted her claim that she did not know how the recorder worked.

The judge argued that she was justified in surreptitiously recording the 3 meetings because she needed “to protect herself from recurring ‘workplace hostilities, belittling in the presence of staff, and verbal abuse’” by Judge Mizdol.  The Committee found that the judge’s defenses did not justify or mitigate her intentional misconduct.  It explained:

While Respondent may have perceived herself to be the subject of hostile treatment, she had available to her several options to address that situation short of engaging in deceptive and insubordinate conduct.  Respondent could have communicated her concerns directly to the Acting Administrative Director of the Courts or the Assistant Director of Human Resources at the Administrative Office of the Courts.  Respondent’s decision to forego these legitimate avenues to address workplace concerns does not constitute a viable defense in this proceeding.

The Committee noted that the judge’s recording and subsequent denials “occurred in full view of subordinate court personnel,” thus undermining Judge Mizdol’s authority.  It explained:

Such insubordination is intolerable in an institution such as the judiciary where the operational fortitude of the organization depends appreciably on its members’ compliance with the mandates of the administrative hierarchy.  Absent such compliance by its most senior members, i.e. jurists, the judiciary risks similar noncompliance from subordinate court personnel and, for that matter, court users who are required to abide by court orders or face potential sanctions.

The Committee concluded that the judge’s defiance of her superior and lack of candor “suggest a disturbing lack of sound judgment and professional integrity that, if left unaddressed, threaten the dignity of the judicial office and the public’s confidence in the judiciary as an institution worthy of deference.”

The Committee also stated that the judge’s misconduct had been aggravated by her multiple calls about the return of her recorder, her threats to have the police intervene, and her “spurious incident report” to the sheriff’s office, which “exacerbated an already tense situation and unnecessarily exposed additional courthouse staff to this incident.”  Also in aggravation, the Committee noted the judge’s attempts to mislead it during its investigation by feigning ignorance about having recorded the first meeting.  In mitigation, the Committee noted that the judge had performed satisfactorily on the bench after her transfer.

The judge argued that her surreptitious recordings were “legal” in New Jersey and she could not be disciplined for legal conduct.  The Committee stated, however, that, regardless of her legal rights, the judge’s “documented insubordination in her interactions with her Assignment Judge and lack of credibility both to her Assignment Judge and this Committee constitute a sharp deviation from the integrity demanded of all jurists under Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and is deserving of public discipline.”

Election motives  

In several judicial discipline cases in 2017, although the sanctioned misconduct did not directly involve their campaigns, the judges’ concerns about their election chances were cited as a reason for their conduct.

An FBI agent testified that Judge Dawn Segal told him she was concerned about her forthcoming retention election and believed then-judge Joseph Waters to be politically influential when she listened to his requests for favorable treatment for parties in 3 cases to please him.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld her removal.  In re Segal, 173 A.3d 603 (Pennsylvania 2017).

For example, Waters had called Judge Segal and told her that a petition for reconsideration had been filed from her previous refusal to open a default judgment in a code enforcement complaint against Judge Angeles Roca’s son for failing to pay Philadelphia’s business privilege tax for his barbershop.  The same day as his call, Judge Segal reviewed the petition and issued a rule to show cause why the default judgment should not be opened.  She and Waters then engaged in the following phone conversation, which was recorded by the FBI as part of its wiretap surveillance of Waters

Segal:  Hi, I figured it out and I took care of it.

Waters:  Oh, okay.  Thank you.

Segal:  I got it.  Alright.  It was on my um, queue, so I did it.  So tell her it’s done.

Waters:  Thank you very much ….

(Also in November, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld Judge Roca’s removal for seeking Water’s advice about her son’s case and acquiescing in his offer to communicate ex parte with Judge Segal.  In re Roca (Pennsylvania Supreme Court November 22, 2017).  Waters was removed in 2016 following his guilty plea to federal mail fraud and honest services wire fraud charges.  In re Waters, Opinion and order (Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline January 12, 2016).)

2 other discipline cases involved judge-candidates giving interviews about their cases in the midst of their campaigns.

The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline suspended a judge for 60 days without pay for making comments to a reporter about 2 pending cases to protect his re-election, in addition to other misconduct.  In the Matter of Potter, Findings of fact, conclusions of law, and imposition of discipline (Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline November 22, 2017).

In October 2014, the judge held a temporary custody hearing and ruled that a child should reside with his father while his mother, Michelle Angeles, a lieutenant in the Air Force, was deployed in Cuba.  After Angeles divorced Cardona in 2012, she had married a woman.

The Las Vegas Review Journal published an article in which Angeles’s attorney, David Mann, suggested that the judge had ruled against his client based on her sexual orientation.  The judge contacted the reporter, and there was a follow-up article entitled “Judge Defends Custody Decision in Lesbian Mom Case.”  In the article, the judge stated that he granted Angeles physical custody “knowing full well she was gay.”  He also stated that “there’s no way” he could find it to be in the child’s best interest to stay with his stepmother, providing the paper “with profane text messages the stepmother had sent the father.”  The judge also told the reporter that Mann “might have an axe to grind” as he had “handled Mann’s personal divorce this year, and Mann did not show up for trial.”

In the discipline proceeding, the judge explained that he felt that he had to respond to the article because the election was 12 days away, he had an opponent, the article was a lie, he was not anti-gay, and he wanted to protect his reputation and the integrity of the judiciary.  The Commission found that the judge had put his desire to be re-elected ahead of the judicial canons.

Accepting an agreed statement of facts and joint recommendation, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly censured a judge for making public comments about a murder case pending before him in 3 media interviews, in addition to other misconduct.  In the Matter of Piampiano, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct March 13, 2017).  The Commission noted that the “fact that respondent made these statements in media interviews at a time when he was a candidate for election to Supreme Court raises a question as to whether his public comments were motivated by political concerns.”

In September 2015, the judge, then on the county court, was nominated for election to the supreme court, the general jurisdiction trial court in New York State.

On or about October 8, after approximately 8 days of jury deliberations, the judge granted a mistrial in a high profile murder case in which Charles Tan was charged with shooting his father at their family home.  The defense moved for an order of dismissal; the assistant district attorney opposed the motion because they intended to retry Tan.  The judge ordered the parties to appear before him on November 5.

The same day the mistrial was declared, the judge agreed to 1-on-1 interviews about the case in his chambers with reporters from 2 TV stations and a newspaper.

As the Commission explained:

While he often responded to the reporters’ questions about the Tan case with general statements about procedures and the legal system, he should have recognized that any statements he made in that context would be understood as pertaining to Tan and therefore were problematic.  His statements, however, went well beyond general explanations of the law.  He discussed legal issues in the case (including his denial of a request for an accomplice charge), and he provided a description of his interactions with the jury and his sense of the jury’s deliberations.

The Commission noted as “[e]specially troubling” the judge’s description of the defendant in an interview as a “sympathetic’ figure,” raising doubts about his impartiality and undermining public confidence in the impartial administration of justice.