Thursday, September 6, 2018
The Florida Supreme Court has removed a circuit court judge from office
Judge DuPont was elected to the Seventh Circuit bench in 2010. At the time, he was thirty-eight years old and had six years of legal experience.
Case related misconduct
In April 2011, approximately four months into his first term, Judge DuPont presided over a hearing involving support of a minor child. When Judge DuPont questioned the absence of a certificate for successful completion of a parenting class, the husband explained that he did not take the class because he lacked the necessary funds. Judge DuPont then ordered his bailiff to search the husband for money. The search yielded $180, which the man claimed he was holding for someone else. Judge DuPont immediately turned the $180 over to the wife, ordering it credited to outstanding child support.
The court-ordered search was reported by law enforcement officers to Judge Terrill J. LaRue, then administrative judge for the Seventh Circuit. Judge LaRue thought that Judge DuPont had simply made a rookie mistake. He explained to Judge DuPont that he had employed “a very poor procedure” which should not be used again. Judge LaRue was taken aback when Judge DuPont insisted, “I can do that” and “we do that all the time in St. Johns County.”
He hired an opposition research team to trash his 2016 opponent
DuPont’s campaign website listed “imposter information,” suggesting Anthony was using “aliases.” It connected Anthony’s name change to “HideYourPast.com,” insinuating that Anthony had secrets in his past that he sought to conceal. It indicated that Anthony had received three parking tickets for parking in a handicapped zone, with associated “booking dates,” suggesting arrests when there were none. As “Possible Matching Arrest Records for Family/Known Associate,” the website listed three arrest records for Andrea Anthony and twenty one arrest records for Elizabeth Anthony, the candidate’s then-twenty-one-year-old daughter. Neither had ever been arrested. Elizabeth is a second lieutenant serving with the Army Corps Reserves, and, at the time the information was posted on Judge DuPont’s campaign website, was enrolled in veterinary school in Gainesville, Florida.
Judge DuPont committed egregious misconduct during his campaign to attain his office. Under these circumstances, we cannot allow Judge DuPont to serve the term of his judgeship. Based on the misrepresentations Judge DuPont made during his campaign to attain his office as well as the other instances of misconduct during his time in office, we conclude that Judge DuPont has demonstrated a present unfitness to hold office and approve the recommended discipline of removal from office.
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
The most recent opinion from the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee
May a judicial candidate use or re-publish a news media report on the opponent's admittedly inappropriate relationship with a legal client, which occurred during the representation?
ANSWER: Generally, it would not be a per se violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct to use or re-publish negative or critical news reports or articles on the opponent, so long as the mandates of Canon 7 are followed.
The inquirer is a judicial candidate. The news media has published reports that an opponent had, several years ago, been involved in an inappropriate and unprofessional relationship with one of the opponent's then-current legal clients. The opponent has reportedly confirmed that the inappropriate relationship existed. The inquirer wishes to use or re-publish these reports during the campaign and asks if this is permissible.
The Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee has previously dealt with the issue presented herein: may a candidate use or reproduce negative or critical reports on opponents in their advertisements or campaign communications. We have consistently opined that we will not vet candidates' advertisements. Among other reasons, we have ascribed to that position because we have no way of discerning or verifying whether the facts alleged are accurate. Our opinions, therefore, have generally set out the guidelines which Canon 7 mandates must be followed, in order for the candidates' communications and ads to not violate the Code. In Fla. JEAC Op. 98-27 we opined:
"It would not be a violation per se of the Code for a judicial candidate to reproduce negative articles about the candidate's opponents, but the candidate must follow the mandates of Canon 7. This Committee's Opinions in 94-16 and 94-35 are instructive. In Opinion 94-16, the Committee stated: 'The code does not directly address what is ethically acceptable when a candidate wishes to criticize a political opponent. Our Committee finds that in general it would be proper to criticize a political opponent when the criticism is truthful, pertinent and material to judicial office ...’”
"a candidate may criticize an opponent if it is fair and truthful; is pertinent and material to the judicial office; is based on factual, not personal, grounds; is not about a pending case; and does not bring the candidate's impartiality or that of the judiciary into question...Canon 7A(3)(d)(iii) [now Canon 7A(3)(e)(ii)]…”
Therefore, the inquirer is cautioned to follow the mandates of Canon 7 in re-publishing and using the media reports.
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
An agreed public reprimand has been imposed by the South Carolina Supreme Court on a probate judge who has resigned
Two complaints against respondent relate to him calling court personnel "heifers" and "DW" (double wide). Respondent admits making the inappropriate and unprofessional comments, but maintains he was joking when the comments were made. The Agreement also references "pranks and jokes" respondent instigated and participated in during working hours and which he admits were unprofessional and discourteous. However, no details are provided regarding the "pranks and jokes" and it is not clear if this is simply a further reference to the inappropriate comments.
A second complaint stems from respondent using the probate court account for personal financial dealings. Respondent admits he had repairs done to his roof and received two checks from his insurance company to cover the cost. Because respondent's ex-wife's name remained on the deed, the insurance checks were made out to both respondent and his ex-wife. The ex-wife is a former associate probate judge who previously worked for respondent, but lived in Ohio at the time of these events. Respondent asked his stepson to secure the ex-wife's signature on the checks, which he did. When the bank would not accept the checks for deposit, the stepson took the checks to respondent who, in turn, deposited them in the probate court account and wrote a check from that account to the stepson in the amount of the insurance proceeds. The stepson did not use the funds to pay the roofing company and, instead, used the money for his own benefit. Respondent learned of the stepson's actions upon being served with a summons and complaint by the roofing company. Respondent has filed suit against his stepson to recover the money.
He had a prior record of two letters of caution and a confidential admonition. (Mike Frisch)
Monday, August 13, 2018
The Indiana Supreme Court reprimanded a judge
Judge Johanningsmeier has been judge of Knox Superior Court 2 since January 2015. He is close friends with B.K., who received a speeding ticket in April 2015.
On June 18, 2015—shortly after vacationing with Judge Johanningsmeier —B.K. failed to appear in Bicknell City Court on the ticket, so default judgment was entered and his license was suspended for failure to appear. On June 30, 2015, B.K. filed a petition for a trial de novo in Judge Johanningsmeier’s court. Judge Johanningsmeier granted the motion the same day and reinstated B.K.’s license, without giving the prosecutor opportunity to respond (thus violating Trial De Novo Rule 2(E)) or disclosing the conflict.
The situation came to the Commission’s attention and resulted in a March 9, 2016 private caution letter advising Judge Johanningsmeier that his close friendship with B.K. would cause a reasonable person to question his impartiality under Indiana Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11(A). Despite the caution, Judge Johanningsmeier did not recuse and did not set the matter for hearing. The case remained in limbo until early 2017.
Meanwhile, shortly before Christmas 2016 and while the case was still pending, Judge Johanningsmeier posted on Facebook a photo of himself, his sister, and B.K. at a party in the Judge’s home. The photo, which B.K. “liked,” was visible to the public and showed that Judge Johanningsmeier and B.K. were close friends.
On March 6, 2017—almost a year after Judge Johanningsmeier’s private caution letter—the prosecutor moved for bench trial in B.K.’s case. Instead of recusing, Judge Johanningsmeier set the motion for hearing on March 20, 2017. At the hearing, he stated on the record that the case involved “a friend of mine” and “I was hoping we could just get the State to dismiss it.” The prosecutor immediately orally moved to dismiss the case, and Judge Johanningsmeier granted the motion.
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
The Maryland Court of Appeals has issued its opinion confirming that a district court judge did not commit judicial misconduct
Judge Reese has served as an Associate Judge of the District Court of Maryland, District Ten, which includes both Howard and Carroll counties, since 2006. On July 31, 2015, the Women’s Law Center of Maryland (“the Women’s Law Center”) filed a complaint against Judge Reese with the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities (“the Commission”). The Women’s Law Center is a statewide non-profit organization that has operated the Protective Order Representation and Advocacy Project, a program providing direct legal services for victims of domestic violence, for over twenty years. The crux of the Women’s Law Center complaint involves Judge Reese’s conduct overseeing protective and peace orders, and cites three cases for reference: Lauren M. Lewis v. Richelieu W. James (Case No. 1002SP004962014), Patricia Stein v. Benton Stephen Lecuyer (Case No.1002SP001402015), and Biden v. Kramer (Case No. 1002SP005512014). In addition to the Women’s Law Center complaint, two of the individuals referenced therein, Lauren M. Lewis and Patricia Stein, also filed complaints against Judge Reese. Although the complete transcripts for the Lewis and Stein matters were accepted into evidence as joint exhibits before the Commission, the Lewis matter was dismissed by the Commission for insufficient evidence.
The court found no sanctionable conduct
Although the Commission and the Women’s Law Center have taken the position that Judge Reese committed sanctionable conduct because she did not, in their estimation, undertake a more thorough approach in developing the factual scenario in the peace order matter, we conclude otherwise. Judge Reese’s ruling reflects that she appreciated the factual circumstances that were presented to her and applied the law to the facts in a reasonable fashion, thereby complying with Rule 18-101.1. Further, Judge Reese also complied with Rule 18-102.5(a) as reflected by her performance of her judicial duties that belies any rational finding of a lack of competence or diligence on her part.
A judge must be able to exercise the appropriate discretion that reflects an appreciation of the facts presented, an understanding of the law that applies, and a reasonable conclusion based upon an analysis of the law’s application to those facts. Judge Reese carefully considered the testimony of seventeen year old Ms. Hiltz, and her grandmother, Ms. Stein, both of which provided the factual predicate for the petition for a peace order against Mr. Lecuyer, the ex-boyfriend of Ms. Hiltz. After considering the testimony and evidence presented, and ascertaining through questioning that similar conduct had not occurred previously, Judge Reese found insufficient evidence that the abuse was likely to occur in the future, and denied the petition. Reasonable minds could differ on the applicable law, such error does not constitute sanctionable conduct. whether the petition for a peace order should have been granted. However, if Judge Reese erred in her ultimate decision, appreciation of the factual circumstances and the applicable law, such error does not constitute sanctionable conduct.
A proper exercise of discretion involves considering the particular circumstances and exercising sound judgment. 101 Geneva LLC v. Wynn, 435 Md. 233, 241, 77 A.3d 1064, 1069 (2013). Although reasonable minds could differ regarding the merits of Judge Reese’s decisions in the cases before her, those decisions were rooted in consideration of the law and the factual circumstances. In this proceeding, we examine whether Judge Reese’s actions constituted sanctionable conduct under our rules and the circumstances presented. Our review of the record persuades us that they did not.
Judge Watts concurred
the Commission found that Judge Reese violated Maryland Rules 18-101 and 18-102.5(a), because, during a peace order hearing, Judge Reese asked three questions of the petitioner; the interaction took nineteen seconds; and the entire peace order hearing occurred in three minutes. This is the sole rationale given by the Commission in its findings for its decision. Against this backdrop, I agree with the Majority that Judge Reese’s conduct did not rise to the level of violating Maryland Rules 18-101.1 and 18- 102.5(a)...
To find that Judge Reese’s conduct violated Maryland Rule 18-102.5(a) based only on the brevity of the hearing would intrude on a judge’s ability to determine when or at what point there is available sufficient information for the judge to rule on a specific issue. Neither the Commission nor this Court should dictate that a judge must ask a requisite number of questions or spend a designated period of time in evaluating motions or objections, or ruling on any matter before the judge. It is inherent in the judicial decisionmaking process that a judge must have the freedom to determine when the judge has sufficient information to rule—without the judge being subject to a disciplinary proceeding alleging a lack of diligence or competence. To find sanctionable conduct in this case would result in any judge, who asked few questions or perhaps even issued an incomplete ruling, being subject to the disciplinary process for an alleged lack of diligence or competence.
Judge Watts would further find error in the exclusion of the proposed expert testimony of three judges, an issue the court did not decide in light of its ultimate conclusion. (Mike Frisch)
Thursday, July 26, 2018
The Mississippi Supreme Court has reprimanded a judge who stipulated
Judge Curry “has signed warrants based on affidavits sworn by her relatives . . . .” After signing the warrants, Judge Curry would not set bond even though the charges were misdemeanors. Judge Curry would recuse herself from the case, citing her relationship to the affiants.
Judge Curry “disposed of Protection from Domestic Abuse Petitions, in violation of the Mississippi Protection From Domestic Abuse Act . . . [by] display[ing] a pattern of dismissing Petition for Order of Protection From Domestic Abuse without having the statutorily mandated hearing.”
Judge Curry “presided over the Initial Appearance of . . . a relative concerning his Possession of a Controlled Substance charge” setting the bond at $50,000. However, later, the relative filed “what purports to be a Motion for Bond Reduction. The Motion for Bond Reduction is blank and it does not state any reason for [the relative]’s bond to be reduced[,]” and only contains the relative’s signature. Yet, Judge Curry granted the reduction and reduced bond to $5,000.
Judge Curry waived an expungement fee and “directed the clerks to void the receipts in [the] matter and to refund . . . the money.”
Judge Curry, “after being informed of th[e instant matter] and the identity of the complainant[,] submitted a letter to the Claiborne County Board of Supervisors, requesting that they transfer the complainant from her position as Justice Court Clerk.” Judge Curry cited the filing of the complaint as a reason for removal.
The court found a pattern of misconduct
While Judge Curry has not been sanctioned for misconduct before, her misconduct spans numerous cases. Judge Curry’s conduct evidences a pattern, particularly as it relates to her participation in multiple, different cases involving her relatives and also her dismissals of three matters without a statutorily mandated hearing or order, involving petitioners’ requested orders of protection for domestic abuse. The Court has held on numerous occasions that multiple incidents of improper behavior constitute a pattern.
Judge Curry shall appear on the first day of the next term of the Circuit Court of Claiborne County in which a jury venire is present, after the mandate in the instant case has issued, to be reprimanded by the presiding judge.
The Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opines
Opinion Number: 2018-18
Date of Issue: July 23, 2018
Must a judge disclose to an attorney that the judge has filed a bar complaint against that attorney?
ANSWER: No. However, the judge may be required to disclose such filing in certain cases to the parties which would necessitate disclosure to the reported attorney.
The inquiring judge recently filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against an attorney who appears regularly before the Court. The judge was informed by the Bar representative that since the complaint was based on a "filing" made by the attorney, the Bar could act as the petitioner and the judge would not be named as the complainant. The Bar representative informed the inquiring judge that proceeding in this way is a courtesy extended to members of the judiciary.
The inquiring judge suggests that if he/she is not named as the petitioner in the complaint, the attorney will not know that the inquiring judge made the complaint unless the judge discloses that fact to the attorney. The judge inquires as to whether he/she is required by the Code of Judicial Ethics to disclose to the attorney that the judge filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against that attorney.
Reasoning and precedent
The issue of whether a judge must disclose the filing of a bar complaint to the parties was specifically addressed by this committee in JEAC Op. 05-16. The majority of the committee determined that a judge, who files a bar complaint against an attorney for actions of the attorney on a case pending before the judge, should disclose the filing of the bar complaint to the parties. See JEAC Op. 05-16. The committee based its opinion on the commentary to Canon 3(E)(1) which provides that a judge should disclose information to the parties that might be relevant even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification. Disclosure to the parties would by necessity require notification to the reported attorney under these circumstances.
The committee further addressed in JEAC Op. 05-16, whether the judge was required to disclose such filing in subsequent cases in which the attorney appears before the reporting judge. The majority of the members of the committee determined that the inquiring judge did not have to disclose the filing of the bar complaint. This opinion appears to be based only on the judge's mere reporting of the attorney's misconduct to the Bar, excluding any other factors that could call into question the judge's personal bias or prejudice concerning the reported attorney.
A judge's mere reporting of perceived unprofessional conduct to the Florida Bar, in and of itself, is not legally sufficient to support a motion for disqualification. See 5-H Corp. v. Padovano, 708 So. 2d at 248 (emphasis added). However, it is not possible to determine in each and every circumstance whether other factors may exist that, coupled with the judge's filing of a complaint with the Bar against the attorney, might support a motion for disqualification. As such, the issue of disclosure to the parties in subsequent litigation and essentially to the reported attorney should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. See Kline v. JRD Mgmt. Corp., 165 So. 3d 812, 814-15 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
This does not suggest that the judge is required to disclose the filing of the complaint to the attorney, absent the attorney appearing before the judge in the pending case in which the attorney’s actions were reported, or in subsequent cases under circumstances beyond the judge's mere filing of the complaint with the Bar.
To the extent that this opinion differs from the committee's opinion in JEAC Op. 05-16, the same is distinguished by factors beyond the mere reporting of an attorney that would potentially call into question any personal bias or prejudice the judge may have concerning the reported attorney.
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
An amended complaint as been filed adding charges before the Judicial Tenure Commission against a Michigan judge.
The Livingston Daily reported
The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission issued an amended complaint against Livingston County District Court Judge Theresa Brennan Monday that adds three new allegations of misconduct to the two dozen issues in the original complaint.
The amended complaint included new allegations of perjury and using public resources for a campaign for judicial office, as well as "a failure to treat every person fairly and with courtesy and respect."
In the new complaint, the commission said Brennan knowingly gave false statements about some matters, including her campaign activities, and showed a pattern of misconduct.
"I never allowed campaign work to be done during work hours... mixing my campaign with work was an absolute no," Brennan told the commission in 2017. "I never asked anyone other than friends, with whom I did not work, and family to help me with campaigns. If someone offered that was not a friend or family I accepted."
The Tenure Commission said in the new complaint that Brennan knew those statements were false. One of the allegations the Tenure Commission raised against Brennan was that of having her employees work on her judicial campaigns during work hours.
Brennan has 14 days to respond to the amended complaint.
The original Tenure Commission complaint, filed June 12, alleges widespread misconduct by Brennan, accusing her of misusing her office for personal advantage or gain, failing to maintain high standards of conduct, failing to respect and follow the law and allowing social and other relationships to influence her conduct or judgment.
Brennan has not yet responded to the original complaint, having been granted additional time to respond.
The Livingston Daily reported in April of 2017 that Brennan was under investigation by the Tenure Commission after transcripts from depositions in her divorce proceedings showed she was having an affair with a Michigan State Police detective Sean Furlong, the lead investigator in a murder trial she presided over. Police searched her home and office in May of 2017.
Furlong retired from the Michigan State Police last year. Brennan has been on the district court bench since 2005.
Brennan is also a defendant in a federal lawsuit filed last December by District Court Administrator Francine Zysk. Zysk alleges Brennan retaliated against her after Zysk testified in Brennan's divorce proceedings regarding the judge's “dishonesty, perjury, scandalous behavior, bullying of employees and disruption of court officials."
A separate Michigan State Police investigation into allegations of impropriety is ongoing, and Attorney General Bill Schuette said his office will review the investigation when it is complete. The focus of the investigation is not clear.
In May 2017, state police seized county-owned computers from Brennan’s courtroom and also seized property from Brennan's home. A state police spokeswoman did not disclose what was seized at that time.
Brennan has not publicly commented on the allegations.
An evidentiary hearing is expected to take place this fall, after which the Judicial Tenure Commission can make a recommendation for discipline to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Lynn Helland, the executive director of the Tenure Commission, said he does not anticipate the amended complaint to delay the hearing expected to take place this fall.
Monday, July 23, 2018
WBNS 10TV.com reports on a disciplinary hearing involving charges against an Ohio judge
One of two women accusing a Franklin County Judge of sexual harassment took the stand Thursday.
Judge Timothy Horton is accused of three counts of misconduct, that could cost him his seat on the bench.
Two counts involve campaign law violations. The third is sexual misconduct against two women in his office: one, a former intern, the other is his former secretary and bailiff.
Elise Wyant has told her story publicly before, but Thursday testifying in front of the Ohio Supreme Court Board of Professional Conduct, she asked not to be photographed.
She says she was a hostess in a restaurant in 2013, when she met Judge Timothy Horton, who asked her to stay after her shift for a drink.
"That's when I learned he was a judge, and he started commenting about my appearance and said I was so sexy and he said, that -these are his words- I want to (expletive) you in the (expletive)."
"What was your response to that?" asked Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Casey Russo.
"I was kind of shocked that this individual would say something so forward."
Wyant says Horton later contacted her about working as his secretary, a significant pay increase from what she was making.
"You still took the position even after he made the comments, and to quote you, he said, I want to (expletive) you in the (expletive). You still took the position even after that comment?" asked Russo.
"Yes," Wyant answered.
"Because I thought... he had been drinking when he made that comment, he was in a relaxed environment, I wasn't his employee. It would certainly change. That was my thinking, that the professional-ness would be there when I was an employee."
But she says those illusions were quickly dashed.
"I went to a lot of lunches," Wyant said. "He wanted my company, he wanted umm...he would say that they wanted something nice to look at."
"Did any of the donors ever make any comments about you being at lunch?" asked Russo.
"During this lunch one of the donors said I know why you brought her here. You want another zero on that check."
She read text messages from Horton, including, "Hey Sexy," and "I just wanted to see you again, that's all."
"Were these common text messages that you received from Judge Horton?" Russo asked.
"Yes," Wyant answered.
She wept while recalling an incident at one of the frequent work happy hours outside of the office.
"He started pulling at my waist and my hip. He kept saying over and over I want to (expletive) you, I want to (expletive) you. And he was being so loud. I kept saying stop, stop. When I talked to him the next day about it, he said, 'If I ever do that again, take me by the shoulders and shake me and say no. And my reaction to that is I shouldn't have to do that. Because you shouldn't be putting me in that position in the first place."
Horton denies that specific allegation, but he and Wyant both admit to engaging in sexually-charged conversations.
He also admits to a sexual relationship with a former intern in his office but says it happened months after she left.
She is expected to take the stand Friday.
The expletives may be found in the complaint, which can be found at this link.
The story is posted on the Ohio Supreme Court web page. (Mike Frisch)
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
A non-attorney town court justice has been admonished by the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct
In January 2015 respondent, without notice or permission, entered the home of a woman who had defaulted on a mortgage held by an estate of which respondent's wife was co-executrix. Respondent took photographs to document what he considered to be the poor physical condition of the premises, and he posted the photographs on his wife's Facebook account with the comment "Mom and Alton are turning over in their graves," referring to the deceased relatives who left the estate;
On April 6, 2017, respondent publicly posted four of the photographs of the premises on his own Facebook account, as well as six photographs of the residence's interior taken prior to its sale. Along with the "before" and "after" photographs, respondent commented on contrasting the condition of the home before and after the sale, and he stated that the buyer had been in arrears in her mortgage payments. Respondent made the posting in retaliation for the woman's public accusations that respondent and his co-judge had committed judicial misconduct; and
Respondent did not remove the four "after" photographs from his Facebook account until November 13, 2017, following an inquiry by the Commission. As of February 2, 2018, respondent had not removed from his Face book account either the "before" photographs or the comments about the condition of the house or the buyer's mortgage arrearage.
Respondent is married to Joanne Fisher. In 2008, following the death of Ms. Fisher's stepfather, Alton Adams, Ms. Fisher became a co-executrix of his estate ("Estate"). The primary asset of the Estate was a house located at ("Property").
Respondent was not an executor or beneficiary of the Estate and had no legal right to act on its behalf.
In March 2012 the Estate sold the Property to S. The note and mortgage identified the Estate as the mortgagee and provided that S. was to make monthly payments to the Estate until March 16, 2015, at which time she was required to make a "balloon" payment of the outstanding balance. Under the note and mortgage, the Estate's legal remedies, upon a default by the buyer, were to commence summary eviction and/or foreclosure proceedings. The note and mortgage included no provision granting the Estate a right to enter and inspect the Property.
On January 10, 2015, S. was in arrears in her mortgage payments and was not living on the Property. After consulting the Estate's attorney but without providing notice to S. or obtaining her permission to enter, respondent entered the Property, which was in a state of disorder, and took photographs of the premises. The Estate had not commenced legal proceedings against S.
More photos were later posted on Facebook, apparently in retaliation for judicial misconduct complaints filed by S.
Compounding respondent's misconduct, he inexplicably failed to remove the offensive Facebook post promptly after the Commission questioned him about the matter, despite promising under oath to do so. Although he assured the Commission during his investigative testimony in July 2017 that he would remove the post "this afternoon," he did not remove the four photos taken during his unauthorized inspection of the property until four months later - shortly after the Commission had contacted him again to ask why the post had not been removed - and did not remove the remainder of the post until February 2018. In the meantime, his comments denigrating the property's owner remained on Facebook, and we can assume that more public members would have the opportunity to read them and comment. That was a further injustice to the owner of the property. Respondent concedes that he has "no excuse" for his lengthy delay in removing the post promptly after pledging to do so, and his failure to respond promptly to the Commission's concerns shows a lack of sensitivity to his ethical responsibilities as a judge.
In accepting the jointly recommended sanction publicly admonishing respondent for his behavior, we note that respondent has acknowledged the impropriety of his conduct and has pledged to be more circumspect in the use of social media in the future.
The agreed statement of facts is linked here. (Mike Frisch)
Sunday, July 8, 2018
The Louisiana Supreme Court has disqualified from all matters a judge charged with sexual crimes in ordering that he
be and he hereby is disqualified from exercising any judicial function during the pendency of further proceedings in this matter
The Advocate reported on the charges in late June
A grand jury on Monday indicted a St. John the Baptist Parish judge accused of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl and groping two other teenagers.
Judge Jeff Perilloux of 40th Judicial District Court was charged with three felony counts of indecent behavior with a juvenile and one count of misdemeanor sexual battery, said Ruth Wisher, a spokeswoman for state Attorney General Jeff Landry.
Perilloux also is accused of sliding his fingers into the 15-year-old's bathing suit bottom during a family trip to Destin, Florida, last summer.
Florida authorities have not filed charges related to that incident. But the same girl, a friend of the judge's daughter, told Louisiana State Police that Perilloux touched her breasts on two other occasions — in St. John Parish — while giving her a massage.
On one of those occasions, she said, the judge began "stroking" her breasts, according to a law enforcement official familiar with the lengthy investigation. Perilloux was the only adult present at the time of those incidents.
Perilloux, 50, has denied the allegations but took a leave of absence in May after The New Orleans Advocate reported he was under State Police investigation. He handed his docket to his predecessor on the 40th Judicial District Court bench, retired Judge Mary Hotard Becnel.
"I will spend every nickel that I have to defend myself and my family on these allegations," Perilloux told L'Observateur newspaper last month. "I am not a wealthy man, but I will spend every penny that I have to defend (myself) from these allegations."
The judge's attorney, David Courcelle, told WWL-TV on Monday that Perilloux "unequivocally maintains he has never done anything improper with any of the three alleged victims."
"He will vigorously defend himself against these allegations," Courcelle said.
The investigation began last year after the girl told law enforcement officials that Perilloux had improper sexual contact with her at least three times, including the July 2017 incident in Destin.
In that incident, the girl said, she backed away from the judge after he slid his fingers inside her bathing suit bottom while the two were alone in his bedroom. She told State Police she had gone to the judge's room to ask him about extending the girls' curfew during a beach vacation.
She said the judge begged her "about 10 times" to let him proceed and told her not to be scared, according to the law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the investigation.
Two other girls who were on the Destin trip told detectives they were there when the alleged victim emerged crying from the judge's room.
State Police detectives reviewed Perilloux's text messages and interviewed several friends of the judge's daughter, including at least two who said Perilloux had done things to make them feel uncomfortable, such as patting them on the buttocks. One of them described Perilloux as "creepy."
The State Police reviewed at least 33 screenshots of text messages between the judge and the 15-year-old dating back to September 2015. The judge maintained frequent contact with her and told her at times that he missed her and loved her. He also would compliment her on her appearance in photographs she posted to social media, the law enforcement official said.
The State Police investigation revealed that Perilloux would give spending money to his daughter's friends and kiss them on the cheek. One of the girls told authorities she thought it was "weird when (Perilloux) acts like that," the law enforcement official said.
The indictment accuses Perilloux of committing "lewd or lascivious" acts upon two girls in May and June 2017 and "intentionally" touching the breasts of another girl in December 2017.
Authorities in Okaloosa County, Florida, conducted a separate criminal investigation last year into the alleged assault in Destin. The status of that investigation was not clear Monday.
Landry's office took on the case following the recusal of St. John the Baptist Parish District Attorney Bridget Dinvaut.
Perilloux served for 12 years as an assistant district attorney in St. John Parish and was also the legal counsel for the parish government before being elected to the bench in December 2016.
Perilloux's colleagues at 40th Judicial District Court also have recused themselves from the case.
Criminal indictments frequently prompt the Louisiana Supreme Court to disqualify an accused judge on an interim basis, though that is not automatic.
The indictment is not the first time Perilloux has faced criminal charges. He made headlines following a 2010 DWI arrest in which he threatened a State Police trooper and sought to use his reputation as a prosecutor to avoid going to jail.
"Do you know who I am?" Perilloux asked the trooper, according to a dash-cam video of the arrest. "I am the parish attorney. I'm not some lowlife."
That DWI charge has since been expunged, according to news accounts, and prosecutors declined to pursue a charge of public intimidation related to Perilloux's statements.
Perilloux later apologized for his behavior and said he sobered up following his arrest.
The court took the same action in an unrelated matter recounted by the Times-Picayune
Three former Orleans Criminal District Court judges will step out of retirement to temporarily replace Judge Byron C. Williams as investigators look into groping accusations against Williams, according to orders by the Louisiana Supreme Court.
The trio was formally tapped Monday (July 2) to rotate the spot on Williams' Section G bench.
Judge Dennis J. Waldron will oversee Section G from July 9 through Aug. 5. Retired Judge Calvin Johnson is set to take over Aug. 6 through Aug. 31. Retired Judge Jerome M. Winsberg presides Sept. 1 through Sept. 30, according to the orders signed by Louisiana Supreme Court Justice Greg Guidry.
The three judges have come out of retirement in the past to assist the local court.
In 2015, Waldron, Johnson and Winsberg rotated through temporary assignments in criminal court after Judge Frank Marullo's departure from Section D. Marullo retired after he was ordered off the bench by the state Supreme Court because he had passed the age limit for judges.
Waldron, Johnson and Winsberg filled in for Marullo until the state Supreme Court appointed a more permanent replacement ahead of the 2016 election and subsequent swearing-in of current Section D Judge Paul Bonin.
Known for his punctual proceedings, Waldron has decades of experience on the bench. He was sworn in as Orleans Criminal District Court's Section F judge in 1982 and served for 26 years before his retirement in late 2008. Prior to serving as judge, he spent eight years as a prosecutor.
Since retiring, Waldron has taken on high-profile ad-hoc assignments, including state proceedings for Central City drug kingpin Telly Hankton.
Johnson also retired in 2008, leaving the Section E bench after 17 years. He was first elected to the court in 1990, becoming the first African-American elected to a Louisiana state court without having been first appointed, according to a 2008 The Times-Picayune article about his retirement.
Current Chief Judge Keva Landrum-Johnson took over Section E in 2008.
Judge Calvin Johnson is known for launching the first mental health court in Louisiana in 2002. He also served as chief judge of the criminal court during Hurricane Katrina and played a key role in getting the courthouse reopened within a year of the storm's hit.
He has continued to play a part in public service since his retirement--most recently, Johnson became part of a team of investigators tasked with probing Entergy's practices after it was revealed that paid actors and other supporters purposefully kept opponents out of hearings for a proposed power plant.
Winsberg retired in 1996 after 24 years on the criminal court bench and devoted his efforts to practicing law, according to a 1996 The Times-Picayune article.
Since his retirement, he has returned to the bench to oversee proceedings for a number of prominent cases, including trials for the Angola 5 and for a former Plaquemines Parish judge convicted of stealing public money.
The three judges now take over for Williams, who took a leave of absence amid an investigation into allegations that he inappropriately touched a courthouse employee and made inappropriate comments from the bench.
Earlier this week, Williams' attorney, Ernest Jones, told NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune his client's leave of absence began Monday. Jones attributed the judge's decision to step aside to the "highly publicized" allegations, noting Williams denies the allegations.
Williams' leave of absence will continue until the Judiciary Commission completes its investigation, according to a statement from Jones.
Monday, July 2, 2018
A recent opinion of the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee
May a senior judge serve on the judicial council of a church of which he/she has been an active member for several decades?
The inquiring judge is a senior judge who seeks guidance regarding whether the judge may serve on the judicial council of a church of which the judge has been an active member for many years. According to the bylaws of the church, the position will not be salaried. The members receive a $60.00 per diem as well as mileage for travel expenses. The members of the judicial council are elected by the church body/general conference. The judicial council is composed of lay persons of the church, at least three of whom are required to be either a lawyer or judge, and there must be four members who are elders of the church. The inquiring judge states that the judicial council only addresses matters within the church body and is amenable to the general conference. The Doctrine and Discipline of the church provides that the judicial council may not become involved in civil action/litigation brought by any member or department of the church.
Section XVI(A) of the church’s Doctrine and Discipline provides that the jurisdiction of the judicial council shall relate to and be restricted to “all final appeals from any adverse decision by any bishop, board, commission, group, pastor or any other regularly constituted party or body empowered to make a decision that affects the right of any member or Church body of [said] Church.”
Canon 5C(3) specifically allows judges to act as non-legal advisors for religious organizations. Based upon the description of the duties of the judicial council provided in the Doctrine and Discipline of the church, it appears that the judge would be acting as a legal advisor for the organization by participating in “all final appeals from any adverse decision by any bishop, board, commission, group, pastor or other regularly constituted party or body empowered to make a decision that affects the right of any member or Church body of [said] Church.”
This committee has in the past issued opinions that a judge could not give legal advice or perform legal services for a non-profit organization. See Fla. JEAC Op. 04-16 (judge may serve as trustee of a non-profit philanthropic trust, where the judge will not be asked to provide legal advice or services for the trust); and Fla. JEAC Op. 03-07 (judge may not serve on a hospital’s ethics committee, when the county in which the hospital is located, and the county for which the judge serves, are in the same judicial circuit).
Even if it is determined that the judge’s participation in the judicial council would be as a non-legal advisor, the language in the church’s Doctrine and Discipline suggests that the church or its members could become engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge, and the same is prohibited by Canon 5C(3)(a)(i).
It is impossible to know all of the potential claims and issues that could come before the judicial council of the church. It appears, however, from the church’s Doctrine and Discipline that such issues could arise in a court of law.
Section XVI(I)(8) of the Doctrine and Discipline of the church provides as follows:
Members of the  church are hereby required to seek a final determination of any dispute arising between said members and the Church and/or any department thereof by exhausting all legal remedies provided in The Doctrine and Discipline of the [church] before civil proceedings are engaged in by the said member in his or her own behalf or anyone similarly situated (emphasis added).
Due to the nature of the duties and responsibilities of someone serving on the judicial council of the church, it cannot be said that such activities are those of a non-legal advisor. Even if it is determined that the duties of the judicial council would be considered non-legal, it appears that it is possible that such issues could come before the court in the inquiring judge’s jurisdiction. As such, the committee is of the opinion that such service would be in violation of Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Saturday, June 16, 2018
The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commision has filed charges of misconduct against a District Court judge.
She allegedly failed to disclose a relationship with a police officer who was a key witness in a murder case in which she presided
After respondent was assigned to [the] Kowalski [case] she had substantial contact with Detective Sergeant Furlong, including but not limited to the following:
a. Attending bars/restaurants for dinner and/or drinks
b. Dinner and parties at her house
c. Shopping trips
d. Trips to her cottage
e. Sporting events (including but not limited to University of Michigan football games, Detroit Tigers baseball games, and Detroit Red Wings hockey games)
h. Detective Sergeant Furlong made multiple closed door visits to respondent’s chambers.
On some of the occasions described above, respondent paid for or provided food, drinks, event tickets, or other expenses on behalf of Detective Sergeant Furlong.
After defense counsel received a letter from a local attorney raising the relationship
During the January 4 conference in chambers, respondent stated to counsel that:
a. She had occasionally gone drinking with Detective Sergeant Furlong in the same way that she did with assistant prosecuting attorneys; and
b. Detective Sergeant Furlong had been to her house.
c. In response to another allegation in the letter, respondent denied that she ever had a sexual relationship with Detective Sergeant Furlong.
Respondent failed to disclose the full extent and nature of her relationship with Detective Sergeant Furlong, by omitting significant social activities respondent engaged in with him before or while Kowalski was pending, including but not limited to:
a. Regular visits to bars/restaurants
b. Shopping trips
c. Trips to her cottage
d. Attending sporting events together (including but not limited to University of Michigan football games, Detroit Tigers baseball games, and Detroit Red Wings hockey games)
e. Attending concerts together
f. Golfing together
g. On some of the social outings, respondent paid for food, drinks, event tickets, or other expenses on behalf of Detective Sergeant Furlong
h. While Kowalski was pending, respondent often spoke on the telephone with Detective Sergeant Furlong, including but not limited to 239 telephone calls between November 3, 2011, and December 28, 2012
i. While Kowalski was pending, respondent routinely exchanged texts with Detective Sergeant Furlong
j. Detective Sergeant Furlong made visits to respondent’s chambers, typically with the door closed.
Respondent’s remarks in chambers on January 4 minimized the nature of her relationship with Detective Sergeant Furlong.
Respondent’s conduct during the in-chambers conference served to conceal the true nature of her relationship with Detective Sergeant Furlong.
Charges involving another friend who is an attorney
During their friendship respondent regularly socialized with Ms. Pollesch, including but not limited to:
a. Respondent and Ms. Pollesch belonged to the same book club, which met monthly, with Ms. Pollesch joining the club at respondent’s invitation
b. Respondent and Ms. Pollesch went to each other’s cottages with the book club
c. Respondent and Ms. Pollesch went to each other’s cottages on a number of occasions in addition to the trips with the book club
d. Respondent went on ski vacations with Ms. Pollesch, both to northern Michigan and to the western United States
e. Respondent traveled to Washington, D.C., with Ms. Pollesch
f. Respondent played in an adult concert band with Ms. Pollesch for several years.
g. Respondent exercised with Ms. Pollesch by taking regular walks with her, meeting both at each other’s houses and at the Brighton courthouse
h. Ms. Pollesch occasionally went to respondent’s house for dinner parties
i. Ms. Pollesch went to respondent’s house a number of times to go swimming while respondent was a judge
j. Respondent and Ms. Pollesch attended bonfires at each other’s houses
k. Respondent attended movies with Ms. Pollesch several times per year
l. Respondent regularly met Ms. Pollesch for lunch
m. Ms. Pollesch attended respondent’s cottage with her husband, while respondent was present
n. Respondent hosted Ms. Pollesch’s wedding at her house in 2002
o. Ms. Pollesch worked on respondent’s campaign for circuit court judge in 2000 and for district court judge in 2006 and 2008
p. Ms. Pollesch attended an election party at respondent’s home in 2008.
q. Ms. Pollesch has, over respondent’s judgeship, been the judge’s closest friend who is a practicing attorney.
The judge allegedly presiding over a number of cases where the attorney and her firm appeared wthout full disclosure of the relationship.
There was an alleged relationship with a probation officer
The socialization included, but was not limited to:
a. Meeting for drinks at local bars or respondent’s home
b. Meeting at local restaurants for dinner
c. Dinner parties at respondent’s or Ms. Zysk’s home
d. Celebrating birthdays
e. Exchanging gifts
f. Attending sporting events, including Detroit Tigers and Detroit Red Wings games
g. Exercising at a local “boxing facility” on several occasions
h. Shopping for furniture
i. Ms. Zysk and her daughter spending the night at respondent’s house on several occasions from late 2015 through 2016
j. Travel together on a weekend trip to Chicago in February 2016.
She allegedly presided over her friend's divorce without disclosure.
There is more but the reader gets the gist.
Reddit Bad Lawyer linked to this story from Michigan Radio.
Brennan has also been accused of failing to disclose a friendship with an attorney who argued cases in front of her, using her judicial staff for personal shopping and errands, and in general bullying people who worked with her.
Detroit News reported on the judicial misconduct proceedings.
Friday, June 15, 2018
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended a judicial officer for 15 days for misconduct in an harassment injunction matter
We agree with the Judicial Conduct Panel that a suspension is in order, and we conclude that a length of 15 days is appropriate. The misconduct in this case is undeniably serious. As we stated in Carver, a judge's objectivity and impartiality are critical to the proper functioning of the judicial system. Commissioner Calvert's behavior was far from objective and impartial. He independently investigated the facts of a case pending before him——an effort that included engaging in an ex parte communication with the police chief. He then lied to the parties in a particularly manipulative manner, falsely claiming that he had communicated with individuals in the judicial and law enforcement systems in such a way that the parties were doomed to failure and future legal troubles should they ever seek additional recourse. We cannot abide such assurances by a judge to rig the judicial and criminal justice system against its participants.
We are also troubled, as was the Judicial Conduct Panel, by Commissioner Calvert's argument to the panel that "it is difficult to understand how either party to this matter may have questioned fair treatment in this case when a rehearing of the matter was an available alternative and was never requested." This argument strongly suggests that Commissioner Calvert lacks insight into his own misconduct; it is no surprise the parties did not seek a de novo hearing of his decision given his assurance that he would see to it that any such effort would fail. In other words, Commissioner Calvert's argument seeks a reward for his asserted willingness to tilt the playing field against the parties. No reward will be forthcoming here.
15 days may not be a reward, but it might be a gift. (Mike Frisch)
Thursday, June 7, 2018
The New Hampshire Supreme Court has imposed an interim suspension of a convicted former judge and attorney.
The Union Leader reported on the charges
Judge Paul Moore is facing accusations of faking potentially dozens of positive, anonymous judicial evaluations of himself, leading the Attorney General to launch a criminal investigation and the Supreme Court to place him on leave without pay.
Moore has been absent from his post at Nashua’s district court since mid-October. At the time, court officials declined to explain his absence. But newly released records from the Judicial Conduct Committee show concerns were first raised by court administrators earlier that summer.
After spending months investigating, the conduct committee filed formal charges against Moore on Friday, which now jumpstarts proceedings against him. On Monday, the Attorney General’s office said it was opening a criminal investigation into whether Moore tampered with records, obstructed government administration and other charges.
According to the complaint, Moore purposely attempted to interfere with his 2017 judicial performance evaluation in order to artificially improve his overall score on the evaluations. The state reviews between 18 and 20 judges every year on a rolling basis.
Last July, a link to an online survey was emailed to Moore that allows judges to complete a self evaluation. A list of 90 randomly selected individuals and agencies were included, as they would each be sent a letter inviting them to complete an evaluation of Moore.
Three days later, Moore emailed to request the removal of two former employees from the list of potential reviewers. He asked to add 148 names, including landlords, police and parole officers who appeared before him.
But prior to a public announcement of Moore’s survey, completed evaluations began to come in. In less than 24 hours, he received 16 evaluations with perfect scores in every category, according to Waystack Frizzell, an attorney hired to investigate the case by the Judicial Conduct Committee.
Last week, Moore filed a response to the formal complaint where he admitted to submitting anonymous judicial evaluations of himself online as though some other person was submitting the evaluations.
He also admitted to making the submissions on many occasions over several weeks using his personal computers, iPads, mobile phones and once or twice from his job at the Nashua District Court.
The state’s highest court said it has decided to place Moore on administrative leave without pay to preserve the integrity of the Judicial Branch and the public’s trust.
A judicial committee will meet March 26 to address the matter.
The complaint alleges that there is probable cause to believe that Moore failed to comply with the Code of Judicial Conduct, failed to act in a manner that promotes public confidence of the judiciary, failed to avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety and allowed his behavior to be influenced by fear of criticism.
Moore, of Bedford, began his judicial duties in 2001. He also founded MooreMart, a volunteer organization that ships care packages to troops overseas.
He was previously named the New Hampshire Union Leader and Sunday News New Hampshire Citizen of the Year for 2011, and previously received the William A. Grimes award for judicial professionalism.
And on the recent plea
Placed on leave over concerns he submitted fake evaluations of his own performance, Circuit Court Judge Paul Moore told another lie — this one that chronic pain, anxiety, depression and traumatic stress prevented him from being a judge and he should start receiving a disability pension, a prosecutor disclosed Wednesday.
Moore appeared in Merrimack County Superior Court on Wednesday and admitted to the fraud. It was yet another blow to a popular Nashua judge who was a former U.S. Army Ranger and founded MooreMart, a nonprofit organization that has shipped more than 100,000 care packages to troops deployed overseas.
Moore had already resigned his judgeship, which he gave up after authorities became suspicious of perfect scores on job evaluations supposedly submitted by lawyers and the public last summer. In the weeks ahead, Moore is likely to be disbarred.
On Wednesday, Moore was fined $4,000, must repay $3,900 to the Judicial Retirement System and received a suspended jail sentence.
“He is no longer a judge. He no longer will receive retirement benefits. He walks out of this courtroom not a judge, but a felon,” said Associate Attorney General Jane Young.
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
The South Carolina Advisory Committee on Standards of Judicial Conduct opines on a conflicts issue
A circuit court judge, whose brother is an assistant public defender, inquires into the propriety of serving over criminal cases in which the public defender’s office appears. The judge understands that the judge cannot preside over any case in which the judge’s brother appears. However, the judge inquires into the propriety of presiding over criminal matters in which other members of the public defender’s office appear as counsel. The judge also inquires as to the possible scenario in which the judge is the only one available and one of the brother’s clients is in jail, but wants to plead guilty to a time served offer. The judge inquires as to whether, if the Solicitor and Public Defender waive any conflict, the judge could preside over such a plea.
A circuit court judge may preside in criminal matters where the judge’s brother is employed by the public defender’s office, provided that the judge’s brother is not involved in any way in the case being heard or in a companion case that could be affected by the judge’s rulings. A circuit court judge may preside over a guilty plea for time served for a client of judge’s brother only if both sides waive disqualification or if essential under the rule of necessity.
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Daily Times (Tom Corrigan) reports on recent ethics charges against a former Ohio judge
The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct still is awaiting an answer from former Scioto County Common Pleas Judge William Marshall regarding a formal complaint filed by the board’s Disciplinary Counsel against Marshall, according to its website.
That website appears to have last been updated April 30. A call to the board office was not returned.
The Disciplinary Counsel filed a case against Marshall April 27. After approximately 18 years of service to the bench in Portsmouth, Marshall abruptly retired from the bench effective March 16.
The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct is a 28-member quasi-judicial body appointed by the Supreme Court of Ohio consisting of 17 lawyers, seven active or retired judges and four non-lawyers. This is not the first time Marshall has faced official censure from the state. On April 1, 2015, the Ohio Supreme Court reprimanded Marshall following his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, an incident which resulted in a one-car accident.
The latest complaint centers on Marshall’s alleged misconduct following his daughter receiving a ticket from the Ohio State Highway Patrol. Essentially, the complaint, which is available to the public on the board’s website, accuses Marshall of improperly inserting himself into his daughter’s case.
According to the certified complaint, on or about Sept. 1, 2016, Marshall’s 17-year-old daughter was stopped by the state patrol for allegedly speeding and driving with expired tags. The girl called her father on her cell phone. Again, according to the complaint, Marshall ended up speaking with the patrolman on the scene and attempted unsuccessfully to persuade him not to ticket his daughter. The girl was cited for going 64 mph in a 50 mph zone on U.S. 52 in Scioto County.
On an unspecified date, Scioto County prosecutor Jay Willis was in Marshall’s court room on an unrelated matter. The complaint against Marshall states the judge informed Willis he was upset with the trooper who ticketed his daughter.
“I don’t like the trooper,” Marshall told Willis, according to the complaint. “He didn’t listen to me. There used to be a code in this county – I’m a judge and he shouldn’t have written my daughter.”
The complaint alleges Marshall, on different occasions, made further comments about his daughter’s case and the patrol officer’s behavior. Once more according to the complaint, Willis asked to be removed from the case as he believed Marshall was pressuring him inappropriately. After several continuances, the matter was set for a pre-trial in a county juvenile courtroom on April 4, 2017. As a general policy, the juvenile court does not allow anyone other than the lawyers involved in the courtroom for pre-trial conferences. A bailiff reportedly tried to block Marshall from entering, but he physically shoved his way in to the room.
“I’m her father and I am an attorney, and I’m coming in,” Marshall reportedly announced.
During the pre-trial, which was not on the record, Marshall allegedly told the court the trooper involved acted unprofessionally and showed him no professional courtesy. The matter was set for trial Sept. 18, 2017.
According to the filed complaint, prior to the trial, Marshall attempted to insert himself into the situation in a number of ways, including attempting to contact the trooper directly. Ultimately, a court declared Marshall’s daughter a juvenile traffic offender and imposed court costs.
Marshall is required to file an answer to the certified complaint or face the possibility of having his license to practice law revoked by the state Supreme Court. If an answer is received, the case will be assigned to a three-member panel of the disciplinary board. Usually, a public hearing is set for six months after a case is assigned to a hearing panel.
If the board decides Marshall engaged in professional misconduct, it will file a report with the state Supreme Court. The court is responsible for imposing any sanctions or discipline.
Hat tip to the web page of the Ohio Supreme Court. This reporting also showcases the information now available at the web page of the Board on Professional Conduct. (Mike Frisch)
Friday, May 25, 2018
A censure and suspension without pay of a judge has been approved by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
The stipulated facts are as follows. While Cagle was a member of the drug court team over which the Judge presided, the Judge and Cagle engaged in an undisclosed sexual relationship. Their sexual encounters began in November, 2016, and continued until July, 2017. From November, 2016, until March, 2017, while Cagle was an active member of the drug court team, Cagle and the Judge had sexual encounters both in Cagle's home and on several occasions in the Judge's lobby. Before or after some of their sexual encounters, they would have general discussions regarding the operation of the drug court. They also communicated about a particular defendant, although the Judge appears not to have taken any action in response to Cagle's request regarding that defendant. During some of the time period covered by their affair, the Judge attempted to mediate problems between Cagle and other members of the drug court team. The final sexual encounter between the Judge and Cagle was in July, 2017, by which time Cagle was no longer on the drug court team. The Judge used his official electronic mail (e-mail) account to communicate with Cagle and facilitate one of the sexual encounters.
The Judge admitted that Cagle participated in discussions regarding admission into drug court, referral for treatment, and termination from drug court during his undisclosed extramarital relationship with her. He also admitted that he and Cagle engaged in general discussions regarding the drug court before or after their sexual encounters. We have no doubt that the Judge's undisclosed sexual relationship with a member of his drug court team raises, at the least, the appearance of inappropriate influence and partiality his decisions regarding drug court participants and thus puts the integrity of the drug court during his leadership into question. Further damaging respect for his office, the Judge used his lobby in the court house for at least several of their sexual encounters, reflecting complete disrespect for the dignity and decorum of the court. He also used his court email account to communicate with Cagle, including communicating on a strategy to ensure that their text messages would not be seen by his family. It is beyond dispute that these egregious, deliberate, and repeated acts of misconduct severely diminished respect in the eyes of the public not only for this judge but also for. the judiciary.
As noted above, the Judge's performance evaluations suggest that he has been a conscientious judge who consistently received very positive ratings from attorneys, court employees, and jurors. The Judge's misconduct, however, is serious, and his prior positive evaluations cannot repair the damage to the judicial system caused by his grave,wilful, and repeated wrongdoing. The Judge's unwillingness to abide by the standards imposed on his office brought the office of the Judge, and by extension, the judiciary, into disrepute...
we conclude that Judge Estes shall be and hereby is publicly censured, and that effective June 15, 2018, he shall be suspended without pay indefinitely or until further order of this court, and it is so ORDERED.
From WBUR News
Tammy Cagle, who worked on the drug court where Estes sat, has accused him in a federal lawsuit of pressuring her into performing oral sex on him and then pushing her out of the drug court when she tried to end the relationship.
Estes says their relationship was consensual and denies harassing Cagle or playing a role in her losing her job. He says that Cagle initiated their first encounter and was the one who wanted to continue their relationship.
The Boston Globe reported today that he has resigned. (Mike Frisch)
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
A Tennessee General Sessions Court Judge has been reprimanded for dismissing a DUI to "do a veteran a favor," dismissing a courtroom full of cases en masse without hearing evidence to clear the overcrowded room and stopping by the roadside to interfere with a seatbelt violation citation (which he later dismissed ex parte)
General Sessions Judge Mike Hinson doesn't deny he has a liberal dismissal police when it comes to THP-issued citations.
In a recent interview, the judge said, "So we are being over-enforced. The THP come into a city to get their numbers."
Last May, a trooper pulled over a motorcycle rider who was allegedly going 78 in a 55 mph zone. The motorcyclist was ultimately arrested and charged with DUI.
According to the TBI, the man's blood alcohol was .122, which is well above the legal limit of .008.
But when the DUI suspect came before Judge Hinson, the case was dismissed.
By phone, Hinson, who refused to go on-camera regarding the dismissed DUI case, told News 2 he was simply trying to do a veteran a favor.
In a statement, he said, "To my knowledge, the blood alcohol levels you are citing were not available to me on the September court date."
According to the TBI, the results were available several months before and the official alcohol report was completed by the end of June 2017.
News 2 spoke to District Attorney Kim Helper, who said she could not comment on whether the citation was independently submitted to the grand jury.
She added her office was not involved in the original decision to dismiss it.
According to court documents, last year troopers wrote nearly 2,000 citations in Lewis County.
"They come over, as the troopers say, 'It's like writing fish in a barrel,'" Hinson said.
Of the nearly 2,000 citations given, Judge Hinson dismissed half of them.
Lt. Bill Miller told News 2 Hinson's liberal dismissal policy of THP tickets sends motorists the wrong message.
"It is clear that self-interest was placed ahead of the community interest and by doing that placed the community at risk," Miller said. "When you dismiss a .122 DUI, it clearly undermines what the THP is trying to do and that is to increase public safety."
Judge Hinson admitted he has dismissed an entire courtroom full of citations only once before and he said he did that for courtroom security when 12 troopers wrote so many citations that 300 people showed up for a court capable of holding 117 people.
The judge also told News 2, "Last week's story was not about me, nor individual state troopers - it was about a THP policy which I feel is discriminatory, wasteful and results in over-enforcement of small cities and rural counties."
Hinson continued, "The THP disagrees. I call upon the General Assembly to investigate this police and determine who is correct. If the THP is not going to over-enforce in downtown Franklin, then they shouldn't over-enforce in Hohenwald, Linden or any other small or rural area."
Thursday, May 3, 2018
There are reports that the Nebraska Counsel for Discipline will not pursue ethics charges against a former and recently-resigned Supreme Court Justice
The Omaha World-Herald reported on the resignation
Nebraska Supreme Court Judge Max Kelch’s abrupt resignation last month came in the face of an ethics investigation, two officials told The World-Herald.
The officials wouldn’t discuss details, but one said the allegations against Kelch are in line with the national #MeToo movement that has resulted in resignations of actors, politicians, business executives and judges over questions of sexual misconduct. Attorneys and former colleagues — including two women — told The World-Herald that Kelch’s judicial career has been pocked with sexual comments to women.
Kelch, 60, resigned Jan. 23 — less than two years after his appointment to the bench — rather than undergo an inquiry, according to the officials.
“Of course the governor would not appoint someone with a known history of sexual harassment,” Gage said.
Kelch’s resignation has caused a stir in the hallways of the Capitol and in courthouses across the state. From the floor of the Legislature on Friday, State Sen. Ernie Chambers called on Chief Justice Mike Heavican and Kelch to explain Kelch’s departure, saying it had the potential to be “an impending, overhanging scandal.”
Former colleagues were staggered by the turn of events. Just last fall, a colleague said, Kelch had told people that he expected to become the state’s next chief justice, once Heavican retires. Yet a few months later, he walked away — a move that, because of his limited longevity, will significantly cost him on his pension.
Sarpy County Attorney Lee Polikov, who knew Kelch from the judge’s decadelong tenure in Sarpy, said he had never witnessed any untoward behavior by Kelch.
“He was a great county judge, a great district judge and was destined to be a great Supreme Court judge,” Polikov said. “It’s a shock.”
It’s less of a shock to those who knew another side of Kelch.
Two women who spoke to The World-Herald said Kelch had a strange, at-times suggestive manner. Neither woman said she would consider herself a #MeToo victim, but said Kelch’s comments could be a bit mind-boggling. One said he was sometimes too close for comfort in his chambers, leading the woman to joke about wanting a witness with her when she went to his office. The other said she once heard Kelch ask a petite female staffer in a public hallway about her bodybuilder boyfriend.
“How do you have sex with him?” Kelch asked in front of a number of people, according to the woman. “I would think he would break you in half.”
The staffer at the center of that comment didn’t return messages from The World-Herald.
Kelch also didn’t respond to requests for comment. When he resigned last month, Kelch sent a two-sentence letter to Ricketts that said “it is best for my family to submit my resignation.” Kelch and his wife have a son who is in his early 20s.
Nebraska State Court Administrator Corey Steel declined to comment and said Heavican would have no comment. Steel, who also serves on the Judicial Qualifications Commission, said the law prevents him from saying whether a complaint has been filed. In general, a complaint becomes public only after the commission decides to take disciplinary action against a judge.
The commission’s authority over the conduct of a judge ends upon their retirements or resignations, Steel added.
Nebraska Code of Judicial Conduct says judges shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
Additional language in the code says it applies to both the professional and personal conduct of judges. In addition, judges must accept they will be “subject to public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens.”
In response to a public records request by The World-Herald, the Governor’s Office released a file of 50 emails and letters submitted after Kelch was named a finalist for the high court. Most talked about Kelch’s impressive capacity for work, his impeccable judicial temperament and his fidelity to the law. A few made mentions of high personal character, and none offered any warnings.
“The first the governor became aware of any concern was when Judge Kelch contacted the governor to say there was a complaint filed against him,” Gage said. “Judge Kelch subsequently stepped down.”
Several colleagues praised Kelch’s work ethic, listening ability and pleasant demeanor, even as they described him as “socially awkward.”
Early in his law career, Kelch has told others, he once questioned the sexual orientation of his boss in front of the boss and other colleagues — an exchange that affected their relationship. Later, after he became a judge, Kelch encouraged a female attorney to apply for a judgeship. The woman said she thought she would enjoy the job and possessed the skills it required — and remarked that it was probably time to have a woman on the bench.
“Oh believe me,” he said, “everyone knows you’re a woman.”
Those comments stand in contrast to the serious, measured jurist in court. One longtime public defender called Kelch’s preparation for cases and legal research skills “legendary.”
In a pointed monologue on the floor of the Legislature on Friday, Chambers said he would demand answers as to why Kelch stepped down.
“I’m going to write the Chief Justice a letter and I’m going to say ‘Chief, you can hide the fire, but what are you going to do with the smoke? And when there’s so much smoke attending the departure of this judge, it doesn’t just affect him, it infects the integrity of the Nebraska Supreme Court,’ ” Chambers said.
Throughout his four decades as a lawmaker, the Omaha senator has pursued professional complaints against judges, some of which have resulted in removal, resignation or retirement. Chambers has balked at judges resigning in the midst of ethical inquiries, arguing that such investigations should be completed before a judge can receive retirement benefits.
In an interview, Chambers said his floor comments were based on credible information, but he declined to go into detail.
“I’m beginning to detect an odor that unfortunately smells very familiar,” Chambers said.
The prospect of a public fight over allegations may have factored into Kelch’s decision to resign, a court official said.
“Max is a worrier,” the official said. “His mind is grinding all the time.”
Kelch made $171,975 annually. His sudden retirement will cost him in terms of pension. With about 13 years on the bench, Kelch was seven years away from receiving a full pension — 70 percent of his annual salary.
He would be eligible for about 30 percent of his annual salary right now, according to estimates. If he waited to collect a pension until he’s 65, he would receive about half of his annual salary.
Steel, the court administrator, said the resignation would not have an impact on Kelch’s ability to receive a pension.
Those who recommended Kelch to the governor two years ago described him as humble, helpful, learned, fair, extremely hard-working, “always a gentleman” and “nothing if not professional.”
The woman who heard Kelch’s break-in-half comment said it contrasted with his courtroom demeanor.
“As a judge, you knew he was prepared every time he stepped on the bench,” she said. “I thought he was a really good trial judge. He was just so black and white about everything — very decisive.
“It’s just surprising to me that he didn’t apply the same black-and-white filter ... outside court.”