Conditioned sanctions

The count of state judicial discipline sanctions in 2017 from last week’s post has been up-dated to add 1 public admonishment and 1 resignation in lieu of discipline that should have been included.

At least 18 of the discipline cases from 2017 imposed conditions on the judge in addition to another sanction such as reprimand or suspension.

For example, in addition to publicly censuring a judge for 8 instances of unjustified delay in deciding a variety of cases, the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct ordered the judge to affirm in writing to the Commission every 3 months that she has no matters with decisions pending beyond 90 days.  The sanction was based on a stipulation and agreement, and the judge also agreed to exercise caution to avoid repeating the violations and to diligently maintain a list so that matters pending decision will be regularly brought to her attention.  In re Roberts, Stipulation, agreement, and order (Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct September 26, 2017).

In another case involving delay, the North Dakota Supreme Court ordered a judge to attend the course on decision-making at the National Judicial College and suspended him for 3 months.  This was the third time the judge had been sanctioned for delay, and the judge had also failed to respond to letters from the presiding judge about the timeliness of his decisions.  In the Matter of Hagar, 891 N.W.2d 735 (North Dakota 2017).

2 judges agreed to numerous conditions as part of a period of probation in lieu of or in addition to other sanctions.

In a deferred discipline agreement, a Tennessee judge agreed to be on probation for 3 years, conditioned on no meritorious complaints being filed against her.  During the probation period, she must consult with another judge about any questions she has on law, procedure, or ethics and attend at her own expense the general jurisdiction course at the National Judicial College.  In consideration of the judge’s agreement, the investigative panel of the Board of Judicial Conduct agreed not to pursue formal charges on 16 complaints against her.  In the Matter of Sammons, Deferred discipline agreement (Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct January 23, 2017).

The New Mexico Supreme Court deferred a judge’s 3-week suspension without pay conditioned on his being under supervised probation and a formal mentorship for the remainder of his term and his completion of 2 National Judicial College web-cast courses, “Ethics and Judging:  Reaching Higher Ground” and “Special Considerations for the Rural Court Judge.”  The Court, granting a petition to accept a stipulation and consent to discipline, also publicly censured the judge for ex parte communications in numerous cases, misusing the contempt power, failing to cooperate with supervisory personnel from the administrative office of the courts, allowing his judicial decisions and conduct to be influenced by public opinion, fear of criticism, and/or political interests, and other misconduct.  In the Matter of Walton, Order (New Mexico Supreme Court December 18, 2017).

Training and course attendance, usually on topics specified by the commission, is a common condition imposed in judicial discipline proceedings.

  • Based on an agreement, the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission ordered a judge to complete courses and training on substantive and procedural due process within 6 months in addition to suspending her without pay for 30 days for (1) granting permanent sole custody of a child without requiring the petitioner to provide evidence or giving the respondent an opportunity to obtain counsel, cross-examine witnesses, or introduce evidence and (2) ordering 2 minor children to be immediately placed in foster care without conducting a formal hearing, taking any sworn testimony, or affording the parents due process. In re Stein, Agreed order of suspension (Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission March 21, 2017).
  • Based on stipulations, the New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Committee ordered a judge to complete a seminar on enhancing judicial bench skills by the National Judicial College and publicly reprimanded the judge for revising a negotiated plea agreement sua sponte and refusing to allow the state to strike amendments to the complaint. In the Matter of DeVries (New Hampshire Judicial Conduct Committee April 7, 2017).
  • A judge agreed to complete at least 1 hour of training in judicial campaign ethics as part of a stipulation in which the Washington Commission publicly reprimanded the judge for soliciting written endorsements from court employees in support of his judicial campaign. In re Federspiel, Stipulation, agreement, and order (Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct May 12, 2017).
  • The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for his treatment of prospective jurors and his use of the contempt power against lawyers and ordered the judge to take 8 hours of additional education, including on the role of a judge, contempt, recusal and disqualification, listening, ethics, and case management. Public Reprimand of Aguilar and Order of Additional Education (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct November 6, 2017).
  • The Florida Supreme Court suspended a judge for 30 days without pay and publicly reprimanded him for failing to disqualify himself from cases involving an attorney with whom he had an adversarial and contentious relationship; the Court also ordered the judge to complete a judicial ethics course within 1 year. Inquiry Concerning Yacucci, 228 So. 3d 523 (Florida 2017).

Commissions have required training to address inappropriate statements by judges.  A Washington judge who had stated “we don’t know whether he’s some white guy like me making a threat or somebody who’s, you know, more likely to be a gangster” during a hearing agreed to complete training in implicit or unintended bias as part of a stipulation that also included an admonishment.  In re North, Stipulation, agreement, and order (Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct December 8, 2017).

The Texas Commission required 2 judges to obtain instruction on racial sensitivity from mentors.  1 judge had posted, “Time for a tree and a rope . . .” on Facebook in response to the arrest of an African-American man for the killing of a police officer.  Amended Public Reprimand of Oakley and Order of Additional Education (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct May 8, 2017).  The second judge had used the term “colored” when referring to black people.  Public Reprimand of DeLaPaz and Order of Additional Education (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct March 17, 2017).  In the latter case, the judge was also reprimanded for his handling of a small claims case and required to complete stage I of the Texas Justice Court Training Center’s training for new judges.

The Texas Commission often orders mentorships for sanctioned judges.

  • A judge who was publicly warned about refusing to allow a member of the public to inspect and copy case files and escorting him out of his office was also ordered to obtain 2 hours of instruction with a mentor, particularly on judicial demeanor and public access to judicial case files. Public Warning of Alford and Order of Additional Education (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct March 28, 2017).
  • A judge who was publicly reprimanded for setting a $4 billion bond for a murder suspect and magistrating her own son was also ordered to receive 2 hours of instruction with a mentor on magistration. Public Reprimand of Brown and Order of Additional Education (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct December 19, 2017).
  • A judge who was publicly warned for injecting his judicial position into an exchange with an umpire at his son’s baseball game was also ordered to obtain 2 hours of instruction with a mentor. Public Warning of Warren and Order of Additional Education (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct November 10, 2017).

The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline ordered that a judge be assigned a mentor when she returns from 1-year suspension and that she attend the state limited jurisdiction judges conference and take courses on special considerations for rural court judges, best practices in handling cases with self-represented litigants, and sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace.  In the Matter of Haviland, Findings of fact, conclusions of law, and imposition of discipline (Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline August 29, 2017).  The judge had (1) sealed her then son-in-law’s criminal records relating to his arrests for domestic battery of her daughter; (2) ordered staff to conduct an illegal criminal records search regarding her friend’s boyfriend; (3) sentenced an unrepresented individual to 8 months in jail in violation of due process; (4) referred to men as “sperm donors;” (5) run a juvenile diversion program that did not comply with the law; and (6) issued orders in small claims cases regarding titles for abandoned vehicles.

In a hearing in another case before the Nevada Commission, a video was shown of a matter in which a judge failed to accord plaintiff’s counsel the right to be heard, repeatedly using intemperate language and yelling at her, directing that she be handcuffed, and holding her in contempt.  When asked by a member of the Commission to define a “bully,” the judge replied, “I think if you watch the video that you get a taste of it.”  The Commission ordered the judge to pay a $5,000 fine to and perform 10 hours of community service for an anti-bullying organization, to complete a judicial education course on dealing with difficult parties and attorneys, and to write letters of apology to 2 attorneys.  The Commission also suspended the judge for 60 days for the conduct reflected in the video as well as for making comments to a reporter about 2 pending cases, holding a hearing in a case in which a motion for recusal was pending, and advising a party to file a complaint against opposing counsel.  Finally, the Commission ordered the judge to submit to a psychiatric exam because the judge’s “visceral and emotional display of rage” in the discipline hearing “caused the Commission to seriously question Respondent’s mental stability and capacity to control his anger . . . .”  In the Matter of Potter, Findings of fact, conclusions of law, and imposition of discipline (Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline November 22, 2017).

The Michigan Supreme Court has held that it does not have the authority to order conditions such as training “because they are not judicial discipline as described” in the state constitution, which only provides that the Court “may censure, suspend with or without salary, retire or remove a judge . . . .”  However, in In re Iddings, 897 N.W.2d 169 (Michigan 2017), the Court stated that the Judicial Tenure Commission may recommend further discipline if the judge fails to comply with his agreement to continue counseling for a year at his own expense and to attend a course on maintaining proper boundaries sponsored by the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and the Sante Institute of Professional Education and Research at his own expense.  The Court suspended the judge for 6 months without pay and publicly censured him for sexual harassment of his judicial secretary.


Recorded conversations

In 2011 and 2012, the FBI was investigating Philadelphia Municipal Judge Joseph Waters, including wiretapping his telephone communications.  Eventually, he pled guilty to federal mail fraud and honest services wire fraud for asking other judges for favors on behalf of campaign supporters.  In January 2016, the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline removed him from office.  In October 2016, that court removed former judge Joseph O’Neill based on his guilty plea to lying to a federal agent for denying that he had not been contacted by then-judge Waters about a case.

Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the removal of 2 more judges for their conversations with then-judge Waters and related misconduct.  Judge Angeles Roca was removed for seeking his advice about her son’s case and acquiescing in his offer to communicate ex parte with Judge Dawn Segal, who was handling the case.  In re Roca (Pennsylvania Supreme Court November 22, 2017).  Judge Segal was removed for listening to then-judge Waters’ requests for favorable treatment for parties in 3 cases (including that of Judge Roca’s son) and finding in favor of those parties.  In re Segal (Pennsylvania Supreme Court November 22, 2017).  Under the state constitution, the Court reviews whether sanctions imposed by the Court on Judicial Discipline are “lawful.”

The FBI recorded Judge Segal talking with then-judge Waters about 1 criminal case and 2 small claims case.  In the discipline proceedings, the parties stipulated that the recorded telephone conversations demonstrated that then-judge Waters used his position to request special consideration for litigants in an attempt to influence Judge Segal’s decisions; that Judge Segal entertained the ex parte requests for favorable treatment; and that her decisions ultimately favored those litigants.  In each case, the judge had called then-judge Waters and told him that she had complied with his request, for example, stating, “I figured it out and I took care of it” about the small claims case involving Judge Roca’s son.

The Court rejected Judge Segal’s argument that she had not ruled any differently based on the conversations and, therefore, had not committed misconduct.  The Court emphasized that the judge “knew that she had been approached by a corrosive influence, yet she remained in her decisional role while acting as if she was acceding to the improprieties.  Litigants can have little confidence that a judge proceeding in this way is rendering fair and impartial rulings; rather, they may reasonably believe that such a jurist is doing precisely what she said she was doing by engaging in favoritism.”

In June 2012, the FBI recorded Judge Roca asking then-judge Waters for advice after Judge Segal had denied her son’s pro se petition to open a $5,000 default judgment entered against him when he did not appear for a hearing on a complaint for failure to pay a business privilege tax.  Waters offered to talk to Judge Segal if a motion for reconsideration was filed.  After her son filed the motion, Judge Roca called then-judge Waters and, based on their conversation, understood that he would call Judge Segal on behalf of her son.  That day, Judge Segal reviewed the petition for reconsideration, issued a rule to show cause why the relief should not be granted, and then called Waters.  (The default judgment was ultimately vacated, and the case was withdrawn upon payment of $477 in taxes.)

On appeal, Judge Roca did not challenge the finding that she violated the code of judicial conduct, brought the judicial office into disrepute, and prejudiced the proper administration of justice.  However, she argued that removal was not lawful in light of precedent and the facts of this case, relying on decisions in which the Court of Judicial Discipline had imposed a lesser sanction for misconduct that “she views as equivalent to (or worse than) her own.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court acknowledged that the “concept that the penalty decided upon by the CJD should be subject to a proportionality requirement is not without some appeal” but stated “no such mandate is contained, or even suggested” in the constitution.  The Court held that the Court of Judicial Discipline “has wide discretion to fashion the appropriate penalty once it finds a predicate violation” and that “[s]imilarity of misconduct does not require identicality of sanction, for there are other factors that bear on that decision, including mitigating and aggravating considerations and how a particular jurist’s misconduct undermines public confidence in the judiciary.”

The Court did hold that, “[b]ecause the CJD may lawfully impose discipline warranted by the record, the unavoidable corollary is that a sanction which is not warranted by the record is not lawful and, as such, may be disapproved by this Court,” permitting the Court “to perform a final check in cases of an infraction met with an unreasonably harsh penalty completely out of proportion to the misconduct involved.”  The Court held that regardless whether it would have removed the judge from office if it were deciding in the first instance, her removal was not unwarranted by the record.

In a dissent, 1 justice acknowledged that no 2 “cases are perfectly identical,” but stated that the challenge of analyzing, analogizing, or distinguishing one case by reference to prior cases does not relieve the Court of Judicial Discipline “from its inherent obligation to do so.”

Absent fidelity to stare decisis, the CJD may arbitrarily sanction a jurist and, without the availability of meaningful appellate review, this Court has no ability to reverse it.  At a minimum, it must be this Court’s function, when reviewing a CJD sanctions ruling, to confirm that in reaching its decision, the lower court has engaged in a lawful judicial process which by necessity involves the application of stare decisis.  In the instant matter, the CJD removed an elected judicial official from office.  It imposed this sanction without any meaningful discussion of prior precedent.  As such, the sanction imposed in this case is ipso facto unlawful.

The dissenting justice argued that the removal order should have been vacated and remanded “for an opinion in which the CJD thoroughly examines its precedent before imposing a sanction in this case (and would require the same in every case it adjudicates).”  The same justice dissented for the same reasons in In re Segal, noting that, although the 2 judges’ misconduct differed materially, the Court of Judicial Discipline imposed the same sanction “while employing substantially identical language . . . .”

Parsing truth

A lack of candor can be misconduct and/or an aggravating factor in determining the appropriate sanction in judicial discipline proceedings, sometimes leading to removal when the underlying misconduct otherwise might not.  But courts and judicial conduct commissions have identified different degrees of dishonesty with different consequences.  In 2 recent cases, for example, the Michigan Supreme Court and Judicial Tenure Commission discussed actionable falsehoods, statements “unworthy of belief,” selective or incorrect memories, imprecise expressions, intentional misrepresentations, inaccurate or careless answers, lying under oath, guesses, and speculation.

The Court publicly censured 1 judge for directing insulting, demeaning, and humiliating comments and gestures to 3 children during a contempt proceeding in a protracted and highly contentious divorce and custody case.  In re Gorcyca (Michigan Supreme Court July 28, 2017).  The Commission had also found that the judge committed misconduct by holding the oldest child in contempt for refusing to participate in parenting time with his father and ordering the 3 children confined to a children’s residential center until their father determined they had purged themselves of contempt.  The Court agreed that the judge committed legal error but concluded that error did not constitute judicial misconduct because she had acted with due diligence (appointing attorneys for the children and holding a hearing) and her error could not be fairly characterized as willful failure to observe the law (no one in the courtroom offered alternatives for handling the difficult circumstances or suggested that she was crossing a line).

In addition to other inappropriate comments, the judge had said to the father with respect to the oldest child, 13-year-old LT, “Dad, if you ever think that he has changed and therapy has helped him and he’s no longer like Charlie Manson’s cult, then you let us know and we can do it.”  While making that statement, she made a circular gesture with her finger near her temple.

In response to the Commission inquiry, the judge denied that she had circled her temple with her finger “to indicate or even imply that [LT] was crazy,” explaining that she believed the motion simulated “a wheel moving forward” to indicate that the father should let her know if LT made any forward movement as a result of therapy.

The master had found that answer was false.  The Commission disagreed, stating that knowledge that a statement is false and an intention to deceive are required.  It explained:

The fact that a statement may be incorrect does not, by itself, render the statement “false” within the context of a legal proceeding.  It may be discredited, or deemed unworthy of belief, but given the limits of human memory and perception, as well as the limitations of language, it would be unfair to impute motives of deception or falsehood to everyone who says something that someone else finds incredible, or that proves to be incorrect.  Selective memory does not equal falsehood; incorrect memory does not equal falsehood; imprecision in expression does not equal falsehood; even an answer that one chooses to disbelieve does not equal a falsehood.

The Commission noted that, during the hearing, the judge had “clarified that she did not recall making the gesture and was unaware she had done so until she viewed the video recording of the proceedings,” but that, when she gave her response, she had felt “obligated to provide her best guess about what she intended.”  The Commission emphasized that “the simple answer — ‘I do not remember what was in my mind at the time’ — would have been both accurate and helpful” but concluded that, “as long as she was candid about her lack of memory,” her “speculation about her motives or intentions in performing actions months earlier — actions that she could not even recall” were not “actionable falsehoods.”

However, noting the judge’s response was sufficiently misleading to require a hearing, the Commission requested over $12,500 in costs pursuant to a rule that authorizes costs “if the judge engaged in conduct involving fraud, deceit, or intentional misrepresentation, or if the judge made misleading statements to the [C]ommission, the [C]ommission’s investigators, the [M]aster, or the Supreme Court.”

Disagreeing on review, the Michigan Supreme Court stated that a misleading statement required an actual intent to deceive or at least some showing of wrongful intent.  It concluded that the judge had “merely speculated as to her intent” and that a guess was not akin to a misrepresentation or misleading statement.

* * *
In the second case, the Court suspended a judge for 9 months without pay for interfering with a police investigation at the scene of an accident involving his intern, interfering with the prosecution of the intern, and making an intentional misrepresentation to the Commission; the Court also ordered that the judge pay over $7,500 in costs.  In re Simpson (Michigan Supreme Court July 25, 2017).

In July 2013, Crystal Vargas accepted an internship with the judge.  Within days, the judge and Vargas began communicating with each other frequently by telephone call and text message, exchanging several thousand communications in 4 months, at all times of the day and night and on weekends.

On September 8, the judge and Vargas exchanged 6 text messages between 1:25 a.m. and 2:29 a.m. and 6 text messages between 4:20 a.m. and 4:23 a.m.  At about the time of the latter messages, Vargas was involved in a motor vehicle accident less than 2 miles from the judge’s home.  Vargas called the judge at 4:24 a.m., shortly after the accident.

While Vargas was still on the phone with the judge, Officer Robert Cole arrived at the scene.  As Cole was administering field sobriety tests to Vargas, the judge arrived.

Concluding that the judge’s “behavior at the accident scene constitutes judicial misconduct,” the Court found that the judge “used his position as a judge in an effort to scuttle a criminal investigation of his intern.”

[R]espondent exited his vehicle and approached Ms. Vargas and Officer Cole as sobriety tests were being performed.  Indeed, respondent interrupted the sobriety-testing process.  Respondent, who had prosecuted numerous drunk-driving cases on behalf of Superior Township before he became a judge, was certainly aware that Officer Cole was investigating whether Ms. Vargas was under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance.  Given these circumstances, when respondent began his interaction with Officer Cole by introducing himself as “Judge Simpson,” he appears at best to have failed to prudently guard against influencing the investigation and at worst to have used his judicial office in a not-so-subtle effort to interfere with the investigation.  Indeed, but for respondent’s status as a judge, Officer Cole would not have spoken to respondent until Officer Cole completed his investigation.  Next, respondent spoke to Ms. Vargas during the investigation without Officer Cole’s permission — another action an ordinary citizen would not have been permitted to take.  Finally, respondent’s question — “Well, does she just need a ride or something?”— was a transparent suggestion to Officer Cole to end his investigation and allow respondent to drive Ms. Vargas away from the scene.

Subsequently, the judge twice contacted the township prosecutor, describing Vargas as a “good kid” who was in a “pretty bad relationship,” noting that the prosecutor had met Vargas in the past and would be working with her in the future, raising an evidentiary issue, and discussing potential defense attorneys.  The Court concluded that the judge “improperly acted as a legal advocate for Ms. Vargas and used his position as a judge to thwart the township’s criminal prosecution of his intern,” succeeding for a time in delaying the charges, and that his “actions—individually and taken together” constituted judicial misconduct.

In his answer to the Commission complaint, the judge had stated that “the vast bulk” of his communications with Vargas “related to a complex, sensitive project” she was working on for him in People v. Nassif.  The Court agreed with the Commission finding that that statement was “an intentional misrepresentation or a misleading statement.”  The Court explained:

The sheer number of communications—which were frequently exchanged during the night and on weekends—is inconsistent with respondent’s explanation that the communications related to court business, including an in camera review of evidence in the Nassif case.  Moreover, respondent testified that he learned that the Nassif case was assigned to him on August 11 or 12, and that his court did not receive the evidence for the in camera review until September 12.  Yet respondent and Ms. Vargas had already exchanged a surfeit of communications by then.  In addition, this explanation was inconsistent with another explanation advanced by respondent—that the communications were attributable to the “problems” that Ms. Vargas was having with her former boyfriend, who allegedly had been violent toward her.

However, the Court disagreed with the Commission’s additional finding that the judge made a separate intentional misrepresentation or misleading statement while testifying under oath at the hearing.  In response to the question whether he had any contact with Vargas between midnight and 3:30 that morning, the judge had answered “no” but then added, “I don’t believe there were any text messages.  I don’t believe that there was any contact.”  In fact, telephone records indicated that the judge and Vargas exchanged 6 text messages between 1:25 a.m. and 2:29 a.m.

The Court concluded that the judge had not made an intentional misrepresentation because he had “equivocated by adding that he did not ‘believe’ that there was any communication.”

[C]onsidering this context, it appears that respondent simply may not have recalled the precise timing of a few of the many communications he had with Ms. Vargas—communications that were not central to the allegations of misconduct in this case.  We find that respondent’s testimony on this point was careless and that he provided inaccurate information.  However, we do not believe that the JTC has sustained its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent made an intentional misrepresentation or misleading statement regarding his contacts with Ms. Vargas before 4:00 a.m. on September 8, 2013.

The Court noted that the Commission had also “equivocated” by finding that the judge made “an intentional misrepresentation or misleading statement,” and the Court stated that, if the Commission intended to find that the judge made an ‘”intentional misrepresentation,’ it should not have expressed its finding in the alternative.”  The Court emphasized that “it is far from clear that a ‘misleading statement’ is equivalent to a ‘lie under oath,’” noting it has not addressed “whether materiality or an intention to deceive are necessary to prove that a judge testified falsely under oath.”  Finally, stating that the judge should not receive a more serious sanction simply because he denied the allegations of misconduct, the Court explained that a contrary rule “would create immense pressure on judges to stipulate to the charges or risk removal for fighting them.”

Fines in judicial discipline cases

The $50,000 fine the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline imposed last month on a former supreme court justice for exchanging “sordid and offensive” e-mails with friends and professional acquaintances (see this earlier post for more information) matches the highest fines previously imposed in judicial discipline cases.

  • In 2003, the Florida Supreme Court reprimanded a judge and fined her $50,000 for pro-prosecutorial statements and misrepresentations during her election campaign. Inquiry Concerning Kinsey, 842 So. 2d 77 (Florida 2003).
  • In 2005, as part of an agreed disposition, the Massachusetts Judicial Conduct Commission suspended a judge for 1-year without pay and imposed a $50,000 fine for inappropriate conduct toward 2 female court employees. Press Release (Murray) (Massachusetts Judicial Conduct Commission November 28, 2005).

The Pennsylvania Court stated that, in light of the justice’s retirement, the $50,000 fine was “tantamount” to a 6-month suspension without pay.  Similarly, in Kinsey, the Court noted that the $50,000 fine represented approximately 50% of the judge’s yearly salary or a 6-month suspension without pay, which was the other option that the Judicial Qualifications Commission hearing panel had considered.

In In re Rodriquez, 828 So. 2d 1060 (Florida 2002), the Florida Supreme Court imposed a $40,000 fine, publicly reprimanded a judge, and suspended her for 4 months without pay for misleading statements made in campaign finance reports and violating state campaign laws.  The $40,000 represented approximately half of the salary she had received during an 8-month suspension with pay she had voluntarily taken while she was under investigation for possible criminal violations of the election laws.  (No criminal charges were filed.)  Noting that, when a judge is suspended or on leave, the salary for the senior judge appointed in her place is paid out of a special fund, the Court stated that the fine and the unpaid 4-month suspension would not necessarily make the state whole and instructed the Commission in the future to “also take into consideration, when determining the amount of any fine, the potential financial burden a given circuit incurs when it has to appoint a senior judge in the event of a suspension.”

In its recent case, the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline imposed the fine even though its constitutional authority does not expressly include “fine” in the list of available sanctions.  The Court concluded its authority to order “removal from office, suspension, censure, or other discipline” (emphasis added) provided it “wide latitude” to fashion “a sanction to address the unique circumstances of judicial discipline concerns,” including restoring public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.  The Court noted it commonly imposes sanctions other than those listed, such as reprimand and judicial probation.

Judicial conduct commissions in 9 states do have express authority to impose fines:  Florida, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota (called a civil penalty), Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, and West Virginia.  (In West Virginia, the fine cannot exceed $5,000.)

Other states have imposed other kinds of monetary penalties.

For example, the Rhode Island Supreme Court removed a former judge from office and ordered him to reimburse the state the portion of his salary that reflected the times he left court to go to a casino and gamble while the court remained open for judicial business.  In re Lallo, 768 A.2d 921 (Rhode Island 2001).  Rejecting his argument that the Court did not have the authority to impose a civil sanction in a disciplinary action, the Court concluded that restitution was consistent with its “authority to recommend remedial measures necessary to effectuate the statute.”

In In re James, 821 N.W.2d 144 (Michigan 2012), the Michigan Supreme Court removed a judge from office for, in addition to other misconduct, misappropriating public funds.  Directing the Judicial Tenure Commission to submit a bill of costs, the Court stated that it could include the amount that the judge had misappropriated that should have been allotted to victim restitution.

Pursuant to a stipulation, a former judge agreed to make restitution to a public university for the amount he received as compensation for teaching a class despite an advisory opinion stating that such employment was inconsistent with the state constitutional provision making full-time judges ineligible for other public employment; the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct also publicly admonished him for the teaching and for discussing legal representation with persons while a judge but after announcing his resignation.  In re Moberg, Stipulation and Agreement (Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct August 6, 1993).

In addition to suspending a judge without pay for 3 months, the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline ordered him to pay restitution to a defendant for the legal expenses he incurred when the judge issued a result of a “stay-away” order against him at the request of acquaintance without conducting an evidentiary hearing or providing notice.  In re DeLeon, 967 A.2d 460 (2008), 2009 Pa. Jud. Disc. LEXIS 2 (Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline 2009).

Recently, however, the Mississippi Supreme Court refused to order a judge to “make whole” an incapacitated ward who had been deprived of at least $23,000 in part because the judge, without holding a hearing or requiring testimony from a representative of the ward’s interests, had signed an order authorizing a payment to the contractor who was building an accessible home for her without evidence that the estate was at fault for the alleged loss of $23,000 worth of tools.  Commission on Judicial Performance v. Shoemake, Opinion (Mississippi Supreme Court April 14, 2016).  The Court did suspend the judge for 30 days, reprimand him, and fine him $2,500.  In an opinion dissenting in part, 2 justices argued that those sanctions did not account for the fact that the judge’s negligence and inattention had cost the ward at least $23,000 that she was unable to recuperate.  In response, the majority reiterated “that the Court issues sanctions to maintain the dignity of the judiciary and to guard against future excesses, not to punish individual judges” and cited a 1982 decision in which it had rejected a Commission recommendation of “a restitutionary payment” because restitution is not one of the sanctions permitted by the constitution.  The dissent responded that the earlier case had not addressed “restitution from the standpoint of protection of the public” and that the Commission then had “recommended that a justice court judge be assessed civil costs for the procedure he used in collecting bad checks, an issue much different from the one presently before us.”


2015 State judicial discipline sanctions

In 2015, as a result of disciplinary proceedings, 115 judges in 27 states were publicly found to have committed misconduct.

  • 9 judges were removed from office, including 1 former judge and 1 judge who was removed for a mental disability. A $3,500 fine was also imposed in one of the removal cases.
  • 2 judges were retired due to permanent disabilities.
  • 19 judges or former judges resigned or retired in lieu of discipline pursuant to public agreements with conduct commissions.
  • 85 additional judges (or former judges in approximately 10 cases) received other public sanctions. Approximately half of the sanctions were entered pursuant to agreement.
    • 15 judges were suspended without pay.
      • 1 suspension was for 180 days
      • 1 for 4 months plus a reprimand
      • 2 for 90 days
      • 1 for 60 days plus a censure
      • 1 for 30 days plus a reprimand and $10,000 fine
      • 1 for 30 days plus a reprimand and $1,000 fine
      • 1 for 30 days plus a censure
      • 4 for 30 days (or 1 month)
      • 1 for 15 days
      • 1 for 7 days
      • 1 for 2 years but stayed on condition the judge commit no further misconduct
    • 11 judges were publicly censured (1 censure was severe and 1 was based on the judge’s irrevocable resignation).
    • 31 judges were publicly reprimanded (1 reprimand also included a cease and desist order, 2 included orders of additional education).
    • 17 judges were publicly admonished (1 admonishment also included an order of additional education).
    • 3 judges received public warnings (2 warnings also included orders of additional education).
    • Civil penalties were imposed on 2 judges for failing to file their financial disclosure reports.
    • 1 judge was placed on supervised probation with other conditions, including a formal mentorship until the end of her term.
    • 1 private reprimand and 1 private letter of counsel were made public pursuant to the judges’ waivers.
    • 1 former judge’s law license was suspended for 1 year in attorney discipline proceedings for her conduct as a judge.
    • 2 judges were found to have violated the code of judicial conduct but no sanctions were imposed.

Clear erosion of public confidence

Since the June 20014 videotape of Judge John Murphy threatening to commit violence against an assistant public defender went viral, the only question has been the appropriate sanction; the judge admitted the facts and was remorseful about his misconduct, which also included resuming his docket while defendants were without counsel.  The hearing panel of the Judicial Qualifications Commission recommended that he be suspended without pay for 120 days, publicly reprimanded, fined $50,000 plus costs, and required to continue to participate in a mental health therapy program and to complete judicial education courses.  The Florida Supreme Court disagreed, however, and last week removed him from office.  Inquiry Concerning Murphy (December 18, 2015).

On June 2, 2014, the judge had a verbal altercation with assistant public defender Andrew Weinstock after Weinstock refused to waive speedy trial for his client.  The judge stated, “You know if I had a rock, I would throw it at your [sic] right now.  Stop pissing me off.  Just sit down.”  When Weinstock refused to sit down, asserting his right to stand and represent his clients, the judge shouted, “I said sit down.  If you want to fight, let’s go out back and I’ll just beat your ass.”  The 2 men left the courtroom and met in the hall.

Although there is no video of the events in the hallway, the courtroom audio captured the judge remarking, “Alright you, you want to fuck with me?” and sounds of a scuffle.  A deputy separated them.  Weinstock requested that the judge be arrested for hitting him twice in the face, but no arrest was made.  There was no evidence, other than his testimony, that Weinstock had been hit.  The hearing panel found that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the judge struck Weinstock and could not determine which of them initiated physical contact.

The Court noted it examined judicial misconduct for present fitness to hold office “’from two perspectives:  its effect on the public’s trust and confidence in the judiciary as reflected in its impact on the judge’s standing in the community, and the degree to which past misconduct points to future misconduct fundamentally inconsistent with the responsibilities of judicial office.’”  It concluded:

Focusing first on the effects on the public’s trust in the judiciary, we must conclude that Judge Murphy is not presently fit to serve.  Judge Murphy used profanity in an open courtroom and threatened violence against an attorney appearing before him.  This is the sort of egregious conduct that erodes the public’s confidence.  It is without question that except for the June 2, 2014, incident, Judge Murphy has been a good judge.  Notwithstanding his prior judicial performance, Judge Murphy’s total lack of self-control became a national spectacle—an embarrassment not only to the judge himself but also to Florida’s judicial system.  Given the clear erosion of public confidence in the judiciary caused by his misconduct, removal is an appropriate sanction.

* * *

On June 2, 2014, Judge Murphy threatened an assistant public defender with violence in open court, challenged him to a physical fight, engaged in the threatened struggle in which the two men had to be physically separated by a deputy, and reassumed the bench to handle cases where the defendants were without the presence of their attorney.  Because of Judge Murphy’s appalling behavior, we conclude that there is clear and convincing evidence that Judge Murphy engaged in “conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary demonstrating a present unfitness to hold office.” . . .  Judge Murphy’s conduct is fundamentally inconsistent with the responsibilities of judicial office and necessitates his removal.  “[T]hrough his own actions culminating in the misconduct in this case, Judge [Murphy] has lost the public’s confidence in his ability to perform his judicial duties in a fair, evenhanded, and even-tempered manner.”

The Murphy case will no doubt be one of the “Top Judicial Ethics Stories of 2015” discussed during a free webinar presented on Friday January 15, 2016, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. central time by the National Center for State Courts Center for Judicial Ethics.  The webinar will review the 2015 cases and developments in judicial ethics and discipline that grabbed the headlines and illuminated current and recurring issues in judicial conduct, including Facebook and e-mail, campaign fund-raising, gay marriage, and appropriate sanctions.  SpeakersColin Winchester, Executive Director, Utah Judicial Conduct Commission * Cynthia Gray, Director, Center for Judicial Ethics, National Center or State Courts.  The webinar is free, but you must sign up ahead of time.  Click this link to sign up:  If you have any questions, contact Lauren Roberts at


Deceitful, calculated, and unseemly

Adopting findings of fact by 3 special masters who presided over a hearing, the California Commission on Judicial Performance removed a judge for authoring and showing to his courtroom clerk an anonymous letter accusing her of infidelity in order to promote a closer personal relationship with her; engaging in a course of conduct, including texts and gifts, intended to promote a closer personal relationship with her; and related misconduct.  Inquiry Concerning Saucedo, Decision and order (December 1, 2015).

On September 17, 2013, an anonymous letter was delivered to the judge’s home accusing his courtroom clerk of having an affair with a court bailiff.  The “crude and vile” letter was purportedly a copy of a letter addressed to the clerk’s husband at the hospital where he worked.  The next day, the judge called the clerk into his chambers, told her to close the door, and showed her the letter.  The clerk began crying and said she needed to report the letter to court administration or law enforcement.  The judge responded that she could not “tell anybody” about the letter and claimed she could be fired if she reported it.  The judge said that, if she trusted him completely, he would call her husband’s employer and ensure the letter would be intercepted.  Later, the judge told the clerk that, when he called the hospital, “John,” the human resources manager, told him the anonymous letter was sitting on his desk and that “John” had shredded the letter during their phone conversation.  In his testimony and in his verified answer, the judge acknowledged that he had not attempted to contact anyone at the husband’s place of employment and that he made these false statements to make the clerk “feel better.”

In the 2 months following the letter, the judge sent the clerk about 445 texts, many “overly personal and emotional,” and gave her gifts, including flowers, $9,200 in cash, payment of a $533 car repair bill, a trip to Disneyland for the clerk and her family worth $3,202, and a BMW sedan worth $15,000.  The judge used the anonymous letter to pressure the clerk when she sought to distance herself from him, for example, stating “Do you want your husband to find out about the letter?”

Although the judge’s misconduct is unusual, even given the wide variety of misconduct for which judges can and have been disciplined, there is one factor in the case that is present in many removal decisions – a lack of candor in the discipline proceedings.

For example, the judge denied writing the anonymous letter.  The Commission, however, found that the judge did write the letter and mailed it to himself as part of a “predesigned plan to manufacture the clerk’s dependence on him, hoping it would lead to a closer personal or ‘emotional’ relationship with [the clerk].”  The Commission stated that the judge’s actions after receiving the letter – falsely telling the clerk he had contacted her husband’s employer and demanding that she tell no one about it – “make sense only if he was the author” and, therefore, could be certain that the letter would never be received by [the husband] and that there were no security concerns associated with [the husband] receiving the letter.”

The Commission also rejected the judge’s claim that he intended only to “mentor” the clerk by helping her with her finances.

Mentoring involves advice, direction, referrals and encouragement.  As stated by the special masters, “Mentoring is not accomplished by providing a subordinate with thousands of dollars in gifts, including a BMW car and vacation,” an offer to pay for body sculpting” or expecting a ‘special’ friendship in exchange.”

Further, the overly personal and emotional language the judge used in his text messages and notes to [the clerk] is far from the type of supportive but professional communication one would expect in a mentoring relationship (i.e., “It’s silly but still feeling under appreciated”; “I, too, am human and have an ego.  Feel free, if you wish, to compliment me if you like things I do or wear”).  Further, the judge repeatedly stated and suggested that he wanted a closer or “special” relationship with [the clerk] in exchange for his “gifts,” something that would not be expected or appropriate in a mentoring relationship (“If you want me to be an ordinary friend like I was before September, I will provide only moral support.  But if you want me for a special friend, everything is on line with full financial and moral support going forward.  Special friend means you want to make time and effort to share thoughts and experiences with me”; telling [the clerk] that his accountant questioned why he was buying her all of these gifts and whether this was a “one sided friendship”).

Further, the Commission adopted the masters’ credibility determination that, when the judge’s testimony conflicted with the clerk’s, the clerk’s testimony was credible and her version of events was true.  The clerk’s testimony was consistent with and corroborated by documentary evidence, including her text messages and notes and letters given to her by the judge, and she recalled numerous details that “coincided with, and were substantiated by, the content and timing of the documents.”  In contrast, the judge’s testimony was often inconsistent with his text messages and notes, documents he signed, and his prior statements.  The Commission also relied on the masters’ finding that “the manner in which Judge Saucedo testified – failing to answer direct questions, providing nonresponsive and sometimes rambling answers, and answering with irrelevant points – created significant doubts as to the truthfulness of his answers.”

It is impossible to know whether the judge could have preserved his career by more candor and less deceit, but it seems likely given the significant mitigating factors; the Commission acknowledged his lack of prior discipline and his many contributions “to his community and the legal profession, and to promoting diversity on the bench and in the legal profession.”  However, the Commission concluded:

The deceitful, calculated, and unseemly nature of the judge’s misconduct, compounded by his lack of candor in response to the commission’s investigation and untruthful testimony under oath before the masters compels our decision to remove Judge Saucedo from office.  We recognize Judge Saucedo is a well-respected jurist who has devoted many hours to giving back to the community.  Nonetheless, his reputation cannot redeem the seriousness of his wrongdoing, nor obviate the need for removal in order to fulfill our mandate to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.