Private dispositions

The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission recently disclosed its letter cautioning a judge about her treatment of a cancer patient who had been cited for failing to keep his property free of weeds, trees, or other nuisance vegetation, although it dismissed the complaint against the judge.  Letter to Krot (Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission July 5, 2022).  The letter is marked “personal and confidential,” and under the Commission’s rules, it ordinarily would not be public, but the Commission’s post includes her name because the judge waived her right to confidentiality “in recognition of the public interest in this incident,” which received extensive, national media coverage.  In the letter, the Commission notes that the judge had self-reported her conduct although she was not required to do so and had “candidly acknowledged that [her] tone and words . . . were neither dignified nor courteous and were completely inappropriate.” 

On January 10, 2022, Burhan Chowdhury appeared before the judge on Zoom in response to a ticket for a code violation; his son also appeared.  A picture shared on the screen showed overgrown vegetation around a garage in an alley.  During the hearing, Chowdhury told the judge that he had cancer, was very old and weak, and could not look after “these things.”  

The judge responded that Chowdhury should be ashamed of himself and that she would give him jail time if she could.  She fined him $100 and told him to get the area cleaned up, as its appearance was “totally inappropriate.”  When Chowdhury’s son asked if the fine was forgivable, explaining that his father had been ill and that the area had been cleaned prior to the hearing, the judge “asked whether he had seen the photo of the area, then stated in a raised voice that it was shameful and that the neighbors should not have to view it, adding that ‘if you come back here — with your yard looking like that, you’re going to jail.’”  The Commission noted that the “threat was particularly inappropriate, as a jail sentence is not an option for a civil infraction.” 

The Commission’s letter stated that the judge’s reaction may have been due in part to her disappointment that many local homeowners have neglected their property, her unusually heavy docket that day, and her frustration that the city’s lag in using screen share was slowing the day’s proceedings.  The Commission also acknowledged that the judge had learned that she had a significant health issue shortly before the hearing.

However, the Commission cautioned that “a judge cannot allow circumstances, such as those you faced when the Chowdhurys were before you, unduly to influence the way they treat litigants,” warning her “to adhere to the letter and spirit of these canons in the future . . . .”  The Commission explained to the judge:  “You deprived Mr. Chowdhury of his right to provide his explanation for the overgrown vegetation; whether intended by you or not, your interaction caused him humiliation; and you reacted with excessive anger toward an individual appearing before you for the first time, and doing so for a minor infraction.”

The Commission commended the judge for acknowledging her error, taking responsibility without attempting to excuse her conduct, and publicly apologizing, and accepted that her treatment of the Chowdhurys was not racist or otherwise biased.  Noting that she had an unblemished discipline history, the Commission stated that it was confident that her conduct at the hearing was an “aberration” and that there is “no risk of repetition” but informed the judge that it could consider the incident “in the event of future misconduct.”

* * *

If an investigation produces some evidence of misconduct, but the misconduct is relatively minor, most judicial conduct commissions can resolve a complaint about a judge with a private sanction or confidential informal disposition.  Depending on the state, private dispositions are called:

  • Private censures, reprimands, admonitions, or warnings;
  • Letters of admonition, counsel, caution, advice, or correction;
  • Dismissals with caution, admonition, explanation, concern, or warning; or
  • Orders of additional education, cease and desist orders, or adjustments.

Several judicial conduct commissions summarize their private dispositions in their annual reports.  The commissions with this practice include:  the California Commission on Judicial Performance, the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities, the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct, the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission, the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards, the New Mexico Judicial Standards Commission, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board, and the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission.  The California Commission explains that it provides synopses of private admonishments and advisory letters “to educate judges and the public, and to assist judges in avoiding inappropriate conduct;” it acknowledges that because “certain details of the cases have been omitted or obscured” to maintain confidentiality, the summaries are “less informative than they otherwise might be” but notes its belief that “it is better to describe the conduct in abbreviated form than to omit the summaries altogether.”  Summaries of private discipline since 1998 are available on the Commission’s website.

In addition, several commissions post on their websites redacted or abridged versions of their private dispositions when they are issued.  For example, as reflected on their websites, so far in 2022, the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct has issued private admonitions or warnings to and/or ordered additional education for 18 judges.  and the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct has dismissed with warning or advisory letters complaints against 8 judges filed in 2021.

State judicial discipline in 2021

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

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

See also State judicial discipline in 2020

State judicial discipline in 2020: Top stories of 2020

In 2020, as a result of approximately 127 public state judicial discipline proceedings:

  • 11 judges were removed from office.
  • 5 former judges were barred from serving in office again.  1 of those former judges was also suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.  2 were also publicly censured, fined $1,000 each, and permanently barred from public office.  1 was also publicly censured and barred from public office for 10 years.
  • 13 judges or former judges resigned or retired in lieu of discipline pursuant to public agreements with conduct commissions.
  • 7 judges were suspended without pay as a final sanction for 14 days to 6 months, although the 6-month suspension was stayed conditioned on the judge completing 2 hours of education and engaging in no further misconduct.  There were 3 suspensions for 30 days (1 also included a reprimand; 1 included a reprimand and $1,000 fine).  1 judge was suspended for 3 months.  1 judge was suspended for 90 days, reprimanded, and fined $2,000.
  • Approximately 7 of the cases involved former judges.  In approximately 15 of those cases, the judge was also ordered to obtain additional education, training, mentoring, or counseling.
  • 1 former judge was disbarred and 2 former judges had their law licenses suspended in attorney discipline proceedings for conduct while they were judges.  The suspensions were for 6 months, although 1 of those suspensions was stayed conditioned on the former judge completing 4 hours of education and engaging in no further misconduct.
  • In 2 cases, the judicial conduct commission made public findings of misconduct but did not impose a sanction.
  • 1 judge was retired for disability.

This count does not include approximately 8 cases currently pending on review.  Approximately 1/3 of the sanctions were entered pursuant to an agreement.  “Judge” refers to any type of judicial officer, whether full-time or part-time, including supreme court and appellate court justices, justices of the peace, magistrates, court commissioners, and hearing officers.

See also State judicial discipline in 2019.


Many commissions and courts can impose conditions on judges in judicial discipline cases.  For example, the rule in Indiana provides:  “Upon a finding of misconduct . . . or disability . . . , the Supreme Court may impose . . . limitations or conditions on the performance of judicial duties,” alone or in combination with other sanctions.  In 2019, conditions were imposed in over 20 cases, usually with the judge’s agreement.

For example, as part of a stipulation, a judge who was publicly admonished for delays of 392 days and 132 days in deciding 2 family law cases agreed to maintain a list so that pending matters will be regularly brought to his attention and, every 3 months for a year, to affirm in writing that he has no matters with decisions pending beyond 90 days to the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct.  In re Fennessy, Stipulation, agreement, and order (Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 26, 2019).

In several discipline cases, judges were required to undergo a psychological assessment as part of the sanction.  For example, the Maryland Court of Appeals conditioned a judge’s reinstatement after a 6-month suspension without pay on an emotional and behavioral assessment by a qualified health care professional.  The judge was required to “fully cooperate in the health care evaluation and comply with the recommended course of treatment, including counselling, if any;” and, if and when she applies for reinstatement, to provide the Commission of Judicial Disabilities and the Court “a written report from the evaluating health care professional or professionals” about her current medical condition, including any reason why she should not be reinstated as a district court judge.  The judge had (1) failed to treat other judges and courthouse staff with dignity and respect, including repeatedly yelling at court clerks and judges, subjecting court clerks to line-ups when clerical mistakes were made, physically pushing a clerk, and repeatedly attempting to undermine the authority of the administrative judge and (2) abdicated her duty to handle and process search warrant materials as required by statute and instructed a law clerk to destroy warrant materials.  In the Matter of Russell, 211 A.3d 426 (Maryland 2019).

In 2 unrelated cases, the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline placed judges on probation in addition to sanctioning them and ordered them to complete any treatment complete any recommended treatment by licensed psychologists following a psychological and psychosocial assessments.

In In re Muth, Opinion (October 31, 2018), 220 A.3d 1220 (Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline 2019), the Court suspended a  judge for 45 days without pay and fined him $5,000 for (1) viewing images of naked and partially naked women while in his office and (2) having judicial employees grade papers and make copies of handouts on the court’s copier for classes he was teaching.  The purpose of the psychosocial assessment, the Court stated, was “to determine the cognitive, behavioral and emotional motivation leading to the inappropriate sexualized behavior . . . .”

In In re Maruszczak, Opinion (January 9, 2019), Opinion (Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline October 4, 2019), the Court publicly reprimanded a judge for, during his re-election campaign, publicly confronting 3 people who supported his opponent and yelling at them, insulting them, and threatening them.  The purpose of the psychological assessment, the Court explained, was “to assess impulse control and anger related issues.“

See also Inquiry Concerning Lemonidis, 283 So. 3d 799 (Florida 2019) (agreeing that a judge continue stress management counseling in addition to a public reprimand, pursuant to a stipulation, for her comments in 2 criminal cases).

The condition most often imposed is a requirement of additional education, often with a mentor.

For example, a judge agreed to participate in a mentoring program he would develop in consultation with the chief judge when he agreed to be publicly reprimanded by the Vermont Judicial Conduct Board for directly contacting attorneys, including attorneys who appeared before him, to ask them to be part of a campaign committee.  In re Glennon, Public reprimand with order (Vermont Judicial Conduct Board August 28, 2019), pursuant to a stipulation.

Ordering instruction with a mentor is an option often imposed by the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

  • The Commission publicly reprimanded a judge for pulling traffic citations to have an assistant district attorney file a motion to dismiss and/or provide other preferential treatment and ordered that he receive 20 hours of additional instruction with a mentor about traffic citations and warrants. Public Reprimand of Trejo and Order of Additional Education (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 26, 2019).
  • The Commission publicly warned a judge for refusing to allow a litigant to review and copy the charging documents in his case unless and until he entered a plea and for her policy and practice with respect to requests for access to court files; the Commission also ordered the judge to receive 2 hours of instruction with a mentor on public access to court records and responding to requests for court records. Public Warning of Baggett and Order of Additional Education (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct August 8, 2019).
  • The Commission publicly admonished a judge for invoking her judicial position during a telephone conversation with a man she believed was the estranged husband of a woman she believed was cohabitating with her estranged husband; the Commission also ordered that she receive 2 hours of instruction with a mentor, particularly on judicial ethics and professionalism. Public Admonition of Rocha and Order of Additional Education (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct August 26, 2019).

Both the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct and the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline ordered judges to complete the web-based course, “Ethics and Judging:  Reaching Higher Ground,” offered by the National Judicial College.  Guerrero, Order (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct March 29, 2019) (reprimand for threatening to hold 2 police officers in contempt for failing to comply with his order to arrest a woman for violating a harassment injunction entered in a proceeding from which the judge had recused himself); In the Matter of Jasperson, Stipulation and order of consent (Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline July 23, 2019) (reprimand for ordering a landlord jailed for contempt without following the law).

The Nevada Commission also ordered 2 judges to attend at their own expense other specific courses at the National Judicial College, which is located in Reno, Nevada.

  • The Commission publicly censured a judge for using an alternate judge whenever it was his turn to act as on-call search warrant judge for 4 years and failing to cooperate with 3 chief judges and ordered the judge to attend the NJC course “Leadership for Judges.” In the Matter of Hastings, Findings of fact, conclusions of law, and imposition of discipline (Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline March 6, 2019).
  • The Commission publicly admonished a hearing master for ignoring an attorney’s objections to her questioning of a juvenile defendant, interfering with the attorney-client privilege and relationship, yelling at the attorney, attempting to pressure the juvenile into answering her questions by telling her that her probation would be increased if she refused, preventing the attorney from making a record on his objection, and threatening to contact the attorney’s boss; the Commission also ordered the judge to complete “Managing Challenging Family Law Cases: A Practical Approach” at the NJC.  In the Matter of Henry, Findings of fact, conclusions of law, and imposition of discipline (Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline December 12, 2019).

Other examples of education requirements:

  • Based on an agreement, the Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for sharing partisan posts on Facebook. The judge also agreed to complete a program addressing ethical issues and the use of social media; to refrain from making any comments or disseminating any substantially similar social media posts; and to keep his social media platforms private.  Lammey (Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct November 15, 2019).
  • Based on a stipulation and agreement, the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for, without notice or a reasonable evidentiary basis, entering an order in a case to which he was not assigned that gratuitously attacked the character of 2 attorney. The judge also agreed to participate in 4 hours of judicial ethics training, not to repeat his conduct, and to read the code of judicial conduct.  In re Spanner, Stipulation, agreement, and order (Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct November 22, 2019).

State judicial discipline in 2019

In 2019, as a result of state disciplinary proceedings, 2 judges were removed from office.  (2 other judges were removed by conduct commissions, but those decisions were under review at the end of the year and, therefore, not included in the count for 2019.)  In addition, 15 judges or former judges resigned or retired in lieu of discipline pursuant to public agreements with conduct commissions; 1 of those former judges was also reprimanded.  2 judges were retired for disability.

16 judges were suspended without pay as a final sanction.  The suspensions ranged from 5 days to 1 year, although the 1-year suspension was stayed conditioned on the judge engaging in no further misconduct.  The other suspensions were for 7 days, 3 weeks, 28 days, 30 days (3 judges), 45 days (3 judges), 60 days (3 judges), 90 days, and 6 months (3 judges).  The 90-day suspension also included a $5,000 fine and public reprimand; one 45-day suspension also included a $5,000 fine; one 30-day suspension also included a $500 fine and public reprimand; the 28-day suspension also included a public censure.  The reinstatement of one of the judges suspended for 60 days was conditioned on her undergoing an emotional and behavioral assessment by a health care professional and completing a judicial ethics course.

86 judges (or former judges in 11 cases) received public censures, reprimands, admonishments, warnings, or letters of counsel.

  • There were 16 censures, 1 of which was severe. In addition to being censured, 1 former judge was barred from serving in judicial office in the state; 1 former judge was permanently barred from serving in judicial office in the state and ordered to pay restitution; 1 former judge’s law license was annulled, he was permanently enjoined from seeking public office in the state, fined $3,000, and reprimanded; 2 former judges were permanently enjoined from serving in public office and fined $1,000; and 1 judge was ordered to attend a course at the National Judicial College.
  • There were 36 reprimands. 1 reprimand included a $5,000 fine; 1 included a $1,683 fine; 2 included $500 fines; and 10 included requirements such as mentoring, training, stress management, probation, compliance with a lawyers assistance program agreement, or a psychological assessment.
  • There were 20 public admonishments. In several cases, the admonishments included conditions such as training.
  • There were 9 public warnings. 1 also ordered additional education.
  • 1 letter of counsel was made public with the judge’s consent.
  • 1 retired judge was suspended from eligibility as a reserve judge for 3 years
  • 3 former judges had their law licenses suspended in attorney discipline proceedings for conduct while they were judges. 1 suspension was indefinite; 1 was for 6 months; 1 was for 1 year with 6 months stayed.

“Judge” refers to any type of judicial officer including justices, magistrates, court commissioners, and hearing officers, whether full-time or part-time.  Approximately half of the sanctions were entered pursuant to an agreement with the judge or former judge.

Private dispositions

Most judicial conduct commissions can dispose of a matter with a private sanction or informal resolution if there is evidence of misconduct, but the misconduct does not warrant a public sanction.  Depending on the state, these private dispositions are called:

  • Dismissals with caution, admonition, explanation, concern, or warning,
  • Letters of admonition, counsel, caution, advice, or correction, or
  • Private censures, reprimands, admonitions, or warnings.

Some states have more than one category of private disposition.

These types of remedies are usually used if:

  • The misconduct is a single, isolated act that is not likely to be repeated,
  • The misconduct did not involve dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation,
  • The misconduct did not substantially prejudice a litigant or other person,
  • The judge has acknowledged the misconduct and agreed to comply with the code in the future,
  • The judge has not previously been disciplined for the same misconduct, and
  • The judge has not recently been disciplined for other misconduct.

Failure to enter a timely ruling in 1 or 2 cases, for example, is a common subject for a private sanction or caution.

In an informal disposition, a commission:

  • Reminds the judge of ethical responsibilities,
  • Gives authoritative advice,
  • Expresses disapproval of the behavior,
  • Warns that further complaints may lead to more serious consequences,
  • Suggests that other actions would have been more appropriate in the situation,
  • Cautions the judge not to engage in specific behavior in the future, and
  • Recommends that the judge obtain counseling or education.

Although informal dispositions and private sanctions are confidential, several commissions publish on their web-sites redacted versions of dismissals with comment (Arizona), private reprimands (Kentucky), private warnings, admonitions, and reprimands (Texas), and private warnings (Vermont).

In addition, approximately 10 judicial conduct commissions include in their annual reports summaries of private resolutions in addition to statistics of complaint dispositions, descriptions of public cases, and explanations of commission procedures.

For example, in its recent annual report, the California Commission on Judicial Performance summarized the 11 private admonishments and 23 advisory letters that became final in 2018.  It explained that the summaries omit some facts to maintain confidentiality, which makes them “less informative than they otherwise might be,” but that, “because these summaries are intended in part to educate judges and the public, and to assist judges in avoiding inappropriate conduct, the commission believes it is better to describe the conduct in abbreviated form than to omit the summaries altogether.”

For example, the Commission privately admonished:

  • A judge who failed to diligently monitor social media associated with the judge’s name, disregarded court directives regarding the setting of hearings, inappropriately handled a business transaction on the court’s behalf, made undignified, overly personal remarks to a member of court staff, and had a private conversation with an attorney that created the appearance of impropriety.
  • A judge who accepted an improper gift from an attorney and failed to disclose the gift when the attorney appeared before the judge and failed to disclose or disqualify when another attorney with whom the judge had a personal relationship appeared.
  • A judge who made remarks that gave the appearance that the judge was trying to dissuade an attorney from filing a statement of disqualification for cause, reflected poor demeanor, and gave the appearance of bias and embroilment.
  • A judge who included gratuitous, inaccurate information about a litigant in a recusal order.
  • A judge who, on the record during proceedings, mentioned information received ex parte about one of the litigants without providing the litigant an opportunity to be heard; made gratuitous and discourteous remarks in open court; and described personal experiences on the record.

In privately cautioning a judge, the New Mexico Judicial Standards Commission makes no findings of wrongdoing but expresses its concern “that if true, the conduct may violate or may lead to a violation of the Code if not raised with the judge.”  According to its 2018 annual report, the Commission cautioned 6 judges, for example, a judge who allegedly failed to provide an interpreter for a Spanish-speaking defendant, a judge who allegedly made disparaging and/or condescending comments to an attorney, a judge who allegedly ruled based on a coin toss, and a judge who allegedly engaged in an ex parte communication with an assistant district attorney regarding scheduling without promptly notify defense counsel.

In addition, the Commission disposed of 3 inquiries through informal remedial measures.  For example, a judge who allegedly criticized a jury verdict in the presence of the jury successfully completed an informal mentorship and agreed to receive a letter of caution.

The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct typically includes advisory language with a dismissal “when a judge has not technically violated the Code but members believe the judge could benefit from advice about a particular Code-based issue.”  According to its annual report in 2018, the Commission privately advised 13 judges, for example:

  • To be cautious about clerks’ use of the judge’s signature stamp;
  • To avoid using terms of endearment with litigants; and
  • To ensure that all parties understand the judge’s policies for bench conferences to avoid the appearance that ex parte communications are occurring.

The Commission generally issues warnings when “a judge either came close to violating the Code or when a technical violation has occurred, but members conclude that mitigating circumstances dictate against issuance of a public sanction.”  In 2018, the Commission privately warned 12 judges, for example:

  • For making derogatory comments about an elected official during a court proceeding;
  • For improper demeanor, giving legal advice to litigants, and interrupting court business to conduct a wedding;
  • For using a court computer to access restricted file materials in a family member’s case with the family member’s consent;
  • For using the judicial title to further a personal business;
  • For seeking the endorsement of a law enforcement association for a re-election campaign and using a court computer for campaign activities; and
  • For issuing an order including facts not supported by the record.

The Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board issues a letter of counsel as a private admonition when there is sufficient evidence of judicial misconduct to file formal charges but mitigating or extenuating circumstances weigh against the filing of formal charges; a judge must accept a letter of counsel and appear before the Board’s Chief Counsel.  The Board issues a letter of caution as a private warning of potential judicial misconduct.  Its 2018 annual report includes examples of the type of conduct addressed by letters of caution, such as:

  • A judge became frustrated at a party’s in-court antics and failed to allow the party and party’s counsel to present a case.
  • A judge referred to a witness for the prosecution as a “liar” and otherwise attempted to cast doubt on the witness’ credibility throughout the jury charge.
  • In response to an unjustified complaint, a judge engaged in “petty retaliation” against a member of the judge’s office staff.
  • After recusing from several cases due to a prior relationship with a litigant, a judge selected his own replacement.
  • A judge routinely had lunch in public with attorneys who had matters pending before him.
  • A judge presided over a preliminary arraignment and preliminary hearings on criminal cases when the judge was Facebook friends with the victim, the victim’s mother, the victim’s grandparents, and the arresting officer.
  • A judge used inappropriate language when addressing a female defendant at her sentencing hearing.
  • While presiding over a sentencing hearing, a judge spoke about and in front of the defendant in a demeaning and inappropriately harsh manner.
  • While campaigning door-to-door, a judicial candidate accepted a $100 cash donation from a constituent.
  • A judge failed to secure proper coverage for his district court, failed to be available to police officers and his court clerks, repeatedly arrived late at court, and failed to train and supervise newly hired court clerks.

The 2018 annual report of the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards gave a sample of the 4 private admonitions and 9 letters of caution it issued in 2018.  For example, a judge was privately admonished for serving during a hearing as the lawyer for the respondents, who were the judge’s relatives; making statements that, at a minimum, vouched for their character without being under subpoena; and testifying about the judge’s personal observations about the facts of the case.  The Board cautioned, for example, a referee who admitted referring to an attorney in court as “that sleazy attorney” and “that blood sucking attorney,” intending “to be humorous and put people at ease.”

 In its annual report, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct briefly described the 20 letters of dismissal and caution issued in 2018.  For example, the Commission cautioned judges for:

  • Failing to deposit court funds in a timely manner;
  • Serving as a board member for a group that regularly appeared in his court;
  • Engaging in isolated and relatively minor instances of unauthorized out-of-court communications with a party in a pending case;
  • Campaigning for a judicial and a non-judicial position simultaneously; and
  • Failing to record all court proceedings as required.

 The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct summarized private reprimands, admonishments, and warnings issued its annual report for fiscal year 2018.  For example, the Commission privately admonished:

  • A judge who discussed with his granddaughter’s previous employer her wish to be rehired and gave the employer a business card identifying him as a judge; and
  • A judge who, during a criminal trial, repeatedly interrupted a defense attorney during her examination of witnesses and tried to direct the form and substance of her questioning, and, after the defense attorney briefly stepped out of the courtroom, remarked in front of the jury that he would have preferred her to remain out of the courtroom.

The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline annual report for 2018 summarized the private sanctions and dismissals with concern issued by the Commission.  For example, the Commission privately censured a relatively new judge for docket and calendar mismanagement that resulted in burdensome caseloads on magistrates and other judges, for excessive absenteeism for extra-judicial activities, and for inappropriate demeanor with staff and judicial colleagues.  According to the report, “the disciplinary process proved to be a constructive measure that resulted in the improvement of the judge’s docket management and demeanor.”

In its annual report 2018, the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct described 2 complaints that were dismissed with expressions of concern following an investigation.  In 1 complaint, a self-represented party had alleged that a judge treated him discourteously and failed to grant him a full opportunity to be heard.  The investigation, which included reviewing the audio record of the hearing, reviewing the docket sheet, and interviewing the judge, “revealed that the judge did adopt a somewhat discourteous tone during the hearing” but did not reveal that the judge failed to grant the party a full opportunity to be heard.  Although it dismissed the complaint, the Commission expressed “its concern to the judge that, in the future, he remain patient and courteous toward all parties appearing before him.”  An investigation of an anonymous complaint revealed that a judge made comments directed at the parties that could have been reasonably perceived as discourteous and/or condescending; the Commission dismissed the complaint while expressing its concern to the judge regarding those comments.

According to its 2018 annual report, the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission privately admonished, for example:

  • A judge who used her position to promote a novel she had written;
  • A judge who reacted very aggressively and engaged in a shouting match with a disrespectful defendant, using profanity and otherwise being intemperate;
  • A judge who twice called the officer in charge of a homicide case to advocate for the return of the defendants’ property;
  • A judge who called the sheriff’s department and ordered that his daughter be released from custody after she had been arrested after midnight for driving under the influence; and
  • A judge who in interviews sharply and disrespectfully criticized another judge’s sentence in a high-profile criminal case, after the sentencing but before the time to file a notice of appeal had expired.

There are tables that identify the private dispositions and public sanctions available in judicial discipline proceedings in each state on the Center for Judicial Ethics web-site.

The difference between reprimand, censure, and suspension

Adopting the findings and recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, which the judge accepted, the New Jersey Supreme Court censured a judge for identifying himself as a judge to court personnel when disputing his own child support payments and discussing the emancipation of his child.  In the Matter of Palmer, Order (New Jersey Supreme Court November 8, 2018).  The Court does not describe the judge’s conduct; this summary is based on the Committee’s presentment.

In March 2011, the judge obtained a judgement of divorce in Somerset County and made arrangements with the county probation department about his child support payments.

On March 21, 2017, the judge appeared at the Somerset County Courthouse and spoke in succession to a judiciary clerk, a caseworker, a senior probation officer (after the caseworker asked for assistance), and the senior probation officer’s supervisor (after the senior probation officer asked for assistance).  While inquiring about the process necessary to emancipate his child and seeking information about his child support payments, he identified himself several times as a judge who sits in Ocean County, for example, showing his judiciary-issued lanyard, which was hanging around his neck and which identifies him as a judge, when asked for identification.

The judge informed the caseworker during their 20-minute discussion that he wished to dispute the cost of living adjustment that had been applied to his child support obligation, claiming it was improper because he “had not received a raise.”  The caseworker described the procedure for challenging the COLA adjustment several times even though the judge was familiar with it, having contested 2 prior COLA’s.  When talking to the caseworker’s supervisor, the judge again referred to his lack of a pay raise, remarking “you the tax payers decided that a long time ago.”

The judge’s conduct was “sufficiently disruptive and disconcerting” that a supervisor in the probation department told the Somerset County assignment judge and that judge, in turn, reported the incident to the Ocean County assignment judge.

The Committee found that the judge’s conduct created the potential that his judicial office would affect the probation department’s handling of his case and, therefore, constituted misconduct even if, as he claimed, he had not intended to influence them and there was no indication that they were actually influenced.  The Committee explained:

As the record reflects, the judiciary personnel with whom Respondent interacted that day, unaware of his subjective motives, perceived Respondent’s multiple references to his judicial office as his attempt to trade on that office for his personal benefit.  [The senior probation officer], when interviewed by Committee staff, testified that Respondent’s repeated references to his judicial office left her with the impression that “he was trying to see if [they] would change anything.” . . .

Similarly, [the caseworker], when interviewed, testified that Respondent’s repeated references to the fact that he was a judge left her with the impression that he expected her to “fix” his issues immediately. . . .  She, in fact, felt pressured when dealing with Respondent precisely because of his repeated references to his judicial office. . . .

The Committee noted that, if the judge had intentionally abused the judicial office, substantially more severe public discipline would have been warranted.

On the other hand, the Committee concluded “enhanced discipline” (that is, something more than a private sanction or public reprimand) was justified because this was the 3rd time in 3 years that the judge had been the subject of discipline.  In October 2015, the Committee had privately reprimanded him for displaying arrogance and aggression towards 2 litigants in 2 matters; in January 2017, the Committee had privately censured him for similar discourtesies towards 2 other litigants.  It was a “mere” 2 months after the second private sanction that the judge went to the Somerset County courthouse.  The Committee concluded that the judge’s “continued inability to conform his conduct to the Code of Judicial Conduct over these past several years, despite his recent receipt of prior discipline and his more than nine-year tenure on the bench, necessarily aggravates his abuse of the judicial office . . . .”


The difference between censure and removal

Accepting determinations of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the New York Court of Appeals recently removed 2 judges from office for a variety of misconduct.  Both judges had admitted to at least some of the misconduct charged, but both had argued that censure, rather than removal, was the appropriate sanction.  The Court rejected their arguments, considering the “full spectrum” and “entirety” of their behavior to find their misconduct “truly egregious,” justifying removal.  (Suspension without pay is not available as a sanction in New York judicial discipline cases.)

The Court removed 1 judge for (1) her conviction for a misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated; being discourteous and seeking preferred treatment from the arresting officers; violating the terms of her conditional discharge by ignoring court orders to abstain from alcohol; and going to Thailand for an extended vacation without notice to the court or her lawyer, resulting in the revocation of her conditional discharge; (2) failing to disqualify herself from the arraignment of a former client and attempting to have his case transferred in a manner that she thought might benefit him; and (3) making discourteous, insensitive, and undignified comments before counsel and litigants in court.  In the Matter of Astacio, Opinion (New York Court of Appeals October 16, 2018).  The Commission decision is In the Matter of Astacio, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct April 23, 2018).

Acknowledging that the judge had “expressed some contrition,” the Court was “unpersuaded” that she had “genuinely accepted personal responsibility” because she continued “to point to external factors and justifications as excuses for her behavior.”  The Court explained:

Although we do not expect petitioner to “adopt a posture of obeisance,” we do require that she adequately “recognize wrongdoing in order to forestall the inevitable, unfortunate conclusion that, absent a harsher sanction, more of the same will ensue” . . . .  Here, petitioner’s justifications for her conduct indicate she does not truly recognize the essential role her own decisions played in bringing about her current predicament.

Emphasizing that the judge’s actions cannot be viewed “through a limited prism” but “the full spectrum of her behavior and its impact on public perception of the judiciary” must be considered, the Court concluded that, given her “apparent lack of insight into the gravity and impact of her behavior on both public perception of her fitness to perform her duties and on the judiciary overall, . . . any rupture in the public’s confidence cannot be repaired.”

* * *
The Court removed the second judge for (1) on numerous occasions, acting impatiently, raising his voice, and making demeaning and insulting remarks, often in open court; (2) twice striking witness testimony and dismissing petitions for insufficient proof because counsel reflexively kept saying “okay;” (3) awarding counsel fees without providing the party ordered to pay an opportunity to be heard, contrary to applicable rules; and (4) failing to cooperate with the Commission.  In the Matter of O’Connor, Opinion (New York Court of Appeals October 16, 2018).  The Commission decision is In the Matter of  O’Connor, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct March 30, 2018).

The judge argued that his courtroom demeanor “was justified by the circumstances, including the ‘rough and tumble’ nature of landlord-tenant litigation.”  Disagreeing, the Court explained:

To be sure, judges must insist upon order and decorum in the courtroom . . . .  Nevertheless, the need to maintain order must be counterbalanced against a judge’s obligations to remain patient and to treat those appearing before the court with dignity and courtesy . . . .  As we have explained, “respect for the judiciary is better fostered by temperate conduct, not hot-headed reactions” . . . .

The Court also emphasized that the judge’s “failure to observe and follow the law resulted in substantial and unjustifiable adverse consequences for the parties that went uncorrected—namely the dismissal of their petitions and the imposition of fee awards.”  Thus, the Court rejected that the judge’s argument that, at most, he had committed “harmless” legal errors that should not serve as grounds for findings of misconduct.  The Court stated that the judge’s “sustained pattern of inappropriate behavior evinced a lack of understanding of his role as a judge—most notably by disregarding the law and impinging on the fundamental right to be heard—thus eroding the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.”

The judge did not challenge the Commission’s finding that he had engaged in a “consistent pattern of efforts to withhold cooperation and to delay or thwart the investigation.”  For example, he had not appeared at the hearing before the referee, at a proceeding scheduled to address the issue of notice, at an opportunity to reopen the hearing, or at oral argument before the Commission members.

On appeal, the Court rejected the judge’s argument that, because his underlying conduct, standing alone, would not result in more than a censure, “his failure to cooperate fully with the Commission’s investigation should not elevate the sanction to removal.”  It explained that it would “not overlook the entirety of a judge’s behavior and the extent to which it ‘qualif[ies] in the aggregate to the level and quality of egregiousness that merit[s] the ultimate discipline of removal.’”  The Court concluded:

If the public trust in the judiciary is to be maintained, as it must, those who don the robe and assume the role of arbiter of what is fair and just must do so with an acute appreciation both of their judicial obligations and of the Commission’s constitutional and statutory duties to investigate allegations of misconduct . . . .  In short, willingness to cooperate with the Commission’s investigations and proceedings is not only required—it is essential.

The difference between reprimand and removal

On September 21, the New Jersey Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge who had involved herself in the scheduling and processing of a friend’s custody case.  In the Matter of Wright, Order (September 21, 2018).  (The Court does not describe the judge’s conduct; this summary is based on the presentment of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct.)

On September 26, the New Jersey Court removed a judge who had involved herself in a former intern’s custody dispute.  In the Matter of DeAvila-Silebi, Order (September 26, 2018).  (The Court’s order does not describe the judge’s misconduct; this summary is based on the report of a 3-judge panel.)

The imposition of drastically different sanctions in 2 cases involving improper use of influence is attributable in part to a difference in the nature and extent of the misconduct.

Judge Wright had escorted a friend seeking temporary custody of his grandson to the court’s intake office, talked to court personnel to ensure he had the right forms, asked the judge on emergent duty about the schedule, and then told a staff member that her friend could return on Monday; the staff member advised the judge that she would bring the friend to her desk so he could complete the application.

In contrast, Judge DeAvila-Silebi called the police the day before Mother’s Day and told a sergeant she wanted an officer to accompany a mother to retrieve her child.  She identified herself as the emergent duty judge and explained that she had received a phone call from an attorney who had filed an emergent application on behalf of a client and that she had seen the order indicating that the mother was supposed to have the child that weekend.  The police department dispatched an officer with the mother to the home of the child’s paternal grandmother; the officer took the 5-year-old boy from his grandmother and returned to police headquarters with the child and the mother, after which the mother left with the child.  The father appeared at police headquarters approximately 2 hours later, irate and questioning why police had removed the child.

The panel also found that Judge DeAvila-Silebi had “demonstrated dishonesty, perversion of her judicial authority and betrayal of the public trust” by making numerous misrepresentations to the police department.  For example, contrary to what she told the police sergeant, she had not received a phone call from an attorney, no emergent application had been filed, and she had not seen the court order regarding parenting time.

Probably the biggest difference that took the Court from reprimand to removal (the intermediate sanctions of censure and suspension without pay were also available) were the aggravating factors in the second case, particularly the judge’s “less than truthful” testimony before the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct.

In Wright, there were no aggravating factors, and the mitigating factors included her sincere remorse and contrition, which had demonstrated to the Committee that the likelihood of her repeating the misconduct was “nearly nonexistent.”

In contrast, in DeAvila-Silebi, the judge “not only failed to acknowledge her wrongdoing or express remorse or contrition” but “displayed additional dishonesty and transcended her right to present a defense.”  Most significantly, the panel found that, despite her repeated denials, the judge did know the mother, who had been assigned to her as an intern for several months.  In fact, the judge had continued to have contact with her after the internship ended, including exchanging texts just before and after the judge intervened with the police.  Phone bills produced by the judge had obviously been altered, which was evident when compared with the bills provided by Verizon.

The panel explained that the judge had “constructed a defense predicated on the false claim that she received a call from an attorney or law enforcement agency requiring her emergent intervention to enforce another court’s order” and “perpetuated that falsehood throughout the proceedings before the ACJC, embellishing or revising it as necessary whenever she became aware of contrary evidence” until “the entire house of cards crumbled” when the “telephone records irrefutably demonstrated the falsity of respondent’s assertions.”  The panel emphasized that the judge’s “’disturbing’ decision to perpetuate a defense without any ‘compunction about being less than credible’ as the investigation of her conduct continued, ‘evidence[s] that [she] lacks the honor and integrity demanded of a judge.’”

Educating and assisting

10 or so judicial conduct commissions summarize private actions in their annual reports, in addition to reporting statistics and describing public cases.

The California Commission on Judicial Performance explains that it summarizes its confidential dispositions “to educate judges and the public, and to assist judges in avoiding inappropriate conduct.”  Although the summaries omit or obscure the facts to maintain confidentiality, which makes them “less informative than they otherwise might be,” the Commission believes, “it is better to describe the conduct in abbreviated form than to omit the summaries altogether.”

The summaries are included in each annual report, and there is an on-line compilation that begins in 1998.  The California Commission’s most recent report summarizes the 13 private admonishments and 21 advisory letters that became final in 2017.  The Commission privately admonished, for example:

  • A judge who made an appointment not permitted by law and in violation of a litigant’s rights without affording the litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard and failed to comply with disclosure requirements for judicial campaign contributions,
  • A judge who acted as an arbitrator or mediator or otherwise performed judicial functions in a private capacity,
  • A judge who, without any matter pending before the court, issued an order purporting to exempt an individual from a particular regulation, and
  • A judge who used the court’s e-mail and mailing address in connection with business activities unrelated to court business and misused the prestige of office in communicating with law enforcement about a matter not related to official court business.

* * *
The 2017 report of the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct includes descriptions of 2 private sanctions.

  • The Commission privately reprimanded a judge for treating parties discourteously in 2 matters; the judge also agreed to retire voluntarily after unsuccessfully struggling to overcome health difficulties.
  • The Commission privately admonished a judge for treating a party discourteously and behaving in a manner unbecoming a judicial officer; the judge agreed to be monitored by the Commission and to meet with a mentor judge for 1 year.

In addition, the report describes several complaints dismissed by the Commission, including the  3 summarized below.

  • Referencing a hearing that occurred approximately 32 months before he filed his complaint, a self-represented litigant in a restraining order matter alleged that a judge had an improper ex parte communication with the opposing party and denied the litigant a full opportunity to be heard. The preliminary inquiry, which consisted of reviewing the materials submitted by the litigant, reviewing the relevant docket sheet, and asking the litigant for any additional evidence, yielded no credible evidence to support the allegations.  The Commission voted there was no good cause to investigate the stale complaint.
  • An anonymous complainant alleged that a judge had engaged in a pattern of treating lawyers and other parties appearing before him discourteously. After reviewing the complaint, the Commission voted to investigate because the seriousness or notoriety of the alleged misconduct outweighed the potential prejudicial effect of an investigation.  The investigation, which included a review of audio records from the judge’s courtroom, revealed no evidence of discourtesy, and the Commission dismissed the complaint.
  • A self-represented plaintiff in a civil matter alleged that a judge treated him discourteously, created an appearance of bias because of his disability and/or because he was self-represented, and denied him due process during a pretrial conference. The investigation included reviewing the materials submitted by the plaintiff, reviewing the audio record of the hearing, and interviewing a witness.  The investigation revealed that the judge treated the plaintiff patiently and courteously throughout the hearing, granted him full due process, and did not do or say anything that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the judge was biased against the plaintiff.  The Commission dismissed the complaint.

* * *
The annual report for the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission summarizes 3 letters of admonition and 2 cautionary letters in 2017.  For example:

  • The Commission cautioned that a judge’s demeanor had aggravated rather than eased a situation in which the judge had become angry with a criminal defendant for failing to follow directions, dared the defendant to “say another word” in exchange for a year in prison, and, after the defendant became agitated, left the bench to help physically restrain the defendant.
  • The Commission privately admonished a judge for writing an op-ed for a newspaper concerning pending criminal charges stemming from the high profile Flint water issue, which was not assigned to the judge.

* * *
The Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board annual report gives examples of the letters of counsel and the letters of caution issued in 2017.  For example, letters were sent to:

  • A judge who failed to recuse at the appropriate time from criminal matters involving a former sexual partner,
  • A judge who engaged in a clandestine emotional support relationship with a governmental official while the official and the official’s staff presented cases before the judge,
  • A judge who was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and identified himself as a judge to the arresting officer,
  • A judge who forwarded an e-mail with racially insensitive content to court employees,
  • A judge who utilized his court office as a forum for a political discussion and utilized the prestige of the judicial office to assist the career prospects of a then-potential opponent to lessen the chances that the potential opponent would run against the judge,
  • A judge who addressed the father of a litigant in a condescending and arrogant manner in open court, calling him “stupid,”
  • A judge who told a witness to “suck it up, cupcake,” in open court when many members of the public were present, and
  • A judge who publicly misrepresented the procedural history of a case and refused to allow counsel to correct the record.

 * * *
The Utah Judicial Conduct Commission 2017 annual report summarizes the 4 dismissals with warning the Commission issued, finding in each matter that “the misconduct was troubling but relatively minor misbehavior for which no public sanction was warranted.”  The Commission dismissed with a warning:

  • A self-report by a part-time justice court judge who had represented a juvenile in a criminal case in violation of a statute,
  • A complaint that a judge made 2 offensive statements about an excused juror during sidebar discussions with the prosecutor and defense counsel,
  • A complaint that a judge had revoked the appointment of counsel when an indigent criminal defendant failed to appear, and
  • A complaint that a juvenile court judge had failed to ensure notice and an adequate record of permitted ex parte communications.

* * *
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct annual report describes the 30 confidential cautionary letters issued in 2017.  For example, the Commission cautioned:

  • 1 judge for beginning court proceedings with a prayer from the bench,
  • 1 part-time judge for linking his law firm web-site to a personal web-site detailing his judicial position,
  • 5 judges for failing to properly supervise court clerks, which resulted in misappropriated court funds,
  • 1 part-time judge for filing frivolous lawsuits as an attorney, and
  • 1 judge for circulating nominating petitions for someone other than himself and participating in town board budget sessions on matters not involving court operations.

* * *
The Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards annual report for 2017 describes the 3 private admonitions and a sampling of the 6 letters of caution the Board issued.  For example, the Board:

  • Cautioned 1 judge about signing proposed orders without providing the opposing party an opportunity to respond,
  • Cautioned 1 judge about yelling or swearing during an in-chambers meeting, and
  • Cautioned 1 judge about statements made during a third-party visitation hearing, such as, “I didn’t know parenting was optional?” and “I’m just saying some people who are scared to death shouldn’t have children.”

* * *
The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline 2017 annual report explains that it:

  • Privately admonished 1 judge for statements during an in-chambers meeting with counsel that disparaged the defendant and interfered with the defendant’s attorney/client relationship, and
  • Privately reprimanded a second judge for failing to timely resolve permanent orders after being placed on a deferral program regarding delays in finalizing permanent orders in an earlier case, also requiring the judge to make periodic docket management reports.

The report also lists the misconduct at which private disciplinary action has been directed in recent years, for example:

  • Failure to respond to Commission letters and disciplinary measures,
  • Delays in docket management caused by medical conditions requiring diversion programs for treatment,
  • Disrespectful remarks to the media or through e-mails regarding the conduct of a litigant, a witness, an attorney, or another judge,
  • Intemperance or verbal abuse toward an employee, a person dealing with court staff, or a customer of a business establishment,
  • Undue reliance on staff for matters in which the judge should be fully competent,
  • Driving while impaired or under the influence of alcohol,
  • Sexual harassment or other inappropriate personal conduct involving a court employee, witness, attorney, or litigant,
  • Irrelevant, misleading, or incoherent statements during arraignments and sentencing,
  • Rulings from the bench involving unprofessional terminology, including expressions that are viewed as offensive in civilized discourse,
  • A pattern of errors in handling trials or issuing rulings that indicated a lack of competence,
  • Making public statements about another judge’s case,
  • Arbitrary rulings in contempt proceedings that resulted in incarceration without due process,
  • Failure to comply with rules applicable to retention elections,
  • Disregard of court-imposed gag orders,
  • Prohibiting a process server from subsequent cases without an opportunity to be heard,
  • Discourtesy toward judicial colleagues, administrative staff, and sheriff deputies,
  • Behavior that the judge may not recognize as a symptom of a medical condition that affects judicial performance, and
  • Advocating for a self-represented party by providing legal advice or failing to treat all self-represented parties to a case impartially.

* * *
In its 2017 annual report, the New Mexico Judicial Standards Commission summarizes the 18 complaints involving 14 judges it resolved with cautionary letters and the 4 inquiries disposed of through informal remedial measures.  For example, 1 judge successfully completed an informal mentorship that addressed concerns the judge allegedly (a) abused discretion by issuing bench warrants to defendants who were sometimes only minutes late to court, then cancelling the bench warrants, but imposing the $100 bench warrant fee and (b) demonstrated inappropriate demeanor with fellow judges and court staff.   A second judge completed an informal mentorship assisting the judge comply with the Inspection of Public Records Act.

* * *
The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct annual report for fiscal year 2017 summarizes private dispositions.  For example, the Commission:

  • Privately warned and ordered additional education for a judge who participated in a ride-along with law enforcement during a “no-refusal” weekend while serving as the on-call magistrate for blood search warrants arising from the ride-along,
  • Privately warned and ordered additional education for a judge who wore a Halloween costume during the performance of her judicial duties,
  • Privately ordered additional education for a judge who used the contempt power to pressure a witness into providing specific testimony, and
  • Privately warned a judge who represented that his opponent did not vote between 1996 and 2012, although publicly available voting records showed that his opponent voted 7 times during that period.