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.”
Sunday, April 29, 2018
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct determined that a city court judge elected in 2014 should be removed from office.
The commission summarized its conclusions.
Judge Astacio was convicted of DWI in August 2016, in an episode that commenced when she was found in her seriously damaged car on the side of the road. She aggravated the situation by her profane and angry reaction to the investigating trooper, and by invoking her judicial office in an attempt to evade the consequences of her arrest. The judge was sentenced to a one-year conditional discharge.
In the next months, she was found to have violated the terms of her conditional sentence on two occasions. In November 2016 she pled guilty to attempting to start and operate her vehicle while testing positive for alcohol on the ignition interlock device in her car.
In May 2017 she failed to provide a court-ordered alcohol test and failed to appear in court as ordered, having departed for a lengthy trip to Thailand. Her conditional sentence for Driving While Intoxicated was revoked and she was sentenced to 60 days in jail and three years’ probation.
The Commission also found that Judge Astacio engaged in misconduct on the bench by failing to disqualify herself from conducting the arraignment of a former client and by making discourteous, insensitive and undignified comments from the bench while presiding over three cases. For example, (1) she told a sheriff’s deputy that he should “tase” or “shoot” or “punch” an allegedly obstreperous defendant “in the face” and (2) in a sexual abuse case, she laughed when the defendant’s attorney said that the alleged victim had “buyer’s remorse” and later said she thought the comment was “freakin hilarious” even while acknowledging that the prosecutor was “offended.”
The relevant documents are linked here.
A lengthy and thought provoking report from the Democrat & Chronicle. (Mike Frisch)
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Authorities say a suburban Albany town justice and a lawyer have been charged with stealing more than $4 million from the family trusts of three sisters.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says 57-year-old Richard Sherwood and 59-year-old Thomas Lagan were arrested Friday on charges including grand larceny and scheme to defraud.
Authorities say the men were business associates who devised a scheme to steal from trusts set up by local philanthropists Warren and Pauline Bruggeman. Schneiderman says the thefts also targeted trusts for Pauline Bruggeman's two sisters.
Sherwood is a former Guilderland town attorney who has served as town justice since 2013. Lagan is a lawyer and financial adviser.
Sherwood pleaded not guilty and was released. His lawyer isn't commenting on the charges. A message left with Lagan's lawyer wasn't returned.
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Not a book on the legal profession, true, but more on law and society. I thought some of our readers would want to know about a new book that I didn't write but did edit and publish on behalf of the author, political scientist Steve Wasby. It's Borrowed Judges: Visitors in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. It is about how federal appellate courts use visiting judges--from other circuits, from the district courts, even from their Senior Judges bench. It publishes at midnight, or likely already as you read this. [Alan Childress]
Friday, April 6, 2018
The Kansas Supreme Court published its conclusions of misconduct by a former judge
Respondent left the bench in the spring of 2017. But the primary misconduct occurred on September 7, 2016, while she was a judge. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction over this matter.
The matter that led to discipline is reflected by a full hearing transcript
'THE COURT: Court will call 10TR604 State of Kansas v. Brandi Lee Heather. Are you Brandi Heather?
'THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
'THE COURT: Show Mr. Andrews for the State. Defendant appears in person, in custody, pro se.
'There's a motion to revoke your probation for failure to comply on file for various reasons. I find that sufficient. I revoke your probation and remand you to the custody of the Sheriff's Office to serve the balance of your sentence.
'We're adjourned. Parties may withdraw.'
The judge failed to participate in the ensuing misconduct proceedings.
She also failed to appear for the oral argument, which is linked here. (Mike Frisch)
Friday, March 30, 2018
A ticket-fixing former judge was reciprocally suspended by the New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department based on a New Jersey sanction
Respondent was suspended for three months in New Jersey based upon misconduct committed while he was a part-time Municipal Court Judge in Jersey City (2004-2007) during which time he submitted parking and traffic tickets issued to him and members of his family to his judicial colleagues for improper adjudication.
Respondent stipulated to facts relating to his involvement in ticket fixing. In 2005, respondent received a ticket for debris left at his law office in Jersey City. Respondent knew that he could not dismiss or adjudicate his own ticket so he brought it to his supervising judge. Respondent represented to New Jersey disciplinary authorities that the perception in the Jersey City Municipal Court was that you could not dismiss your own ticket but you could give it to another judge. The Judge adjudicated the ticket in chambers and respondent paid a $50 fine and $20 court costs. Respondent considered this adjudication to be a "test run" and assumed that other tickets could be handled in similar fashion.
Respondent also presented parking tickets issued to him and his wife to his colleague (who shared law office space with respondent, did per diem work for him for which they were paid, and was listed as "of counsel"). The colleague adjudicated the matters, finding respondent and his wife guilty, waiving the $42 fine for both tickets, and imposing $30 in court costs notwithstanding that neither respondent nor his wife formally appeared in court, nor had they pled guilty by mail as provided for in the court rules. The $30 in assessed costs was paid to the court.
Respondent also submitted a traffic ticket issued to his son in 2004 for failure to observe a traffic control device, a moving violation, to this same colleague who amended the ticket to delaying traffic, a no-point violation, and imposed a $25 fine and $25 in court costs. Respondent's son was found guilty of the amended offense notwithstanding he never formally appeared in the courtroom, but was standing outside in the hallway, and did not enter a guilty plea in a manner prescribed by the court rules. Further, no factual basis for the amended charge was placed on the record and neither the municipal prosecutor nor the police officer who issued the ticket were given notice or opportunity to be heard on the matter. The $50 fine was paid to the court.
In 2007, in response to rumors of improper ticket handling respondent asked an administrative clerk about vacating the tickets adjudicated. Respondent asserted that he was prepared to pay the maximum fine for each of the tickets but the clerk informed him that a ticket could not be vacated once it was entered "in the system." At or around this time, respondent and others became the subjects of investigations conducted by the court system and the New Jersey Attorney General's Office.
On October 3, 2007, respondent voluntarily took an unpaid leave of absence from his judicial position. Thereafter, on or about October 7, 2007, respondent was criminally charged with official misconduct in violation of New Jersey Statutes Annotated 2C:30-2(a). On August 28, 2009, the court granted respondent's application for admission to New Jersey's Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI) program for a period of two years as a condition of which he admitted to his mishandling the traffic tickets at issue and agreed never to hold judicial office again in the future. Respondent successfully completed the PTI program and the charge against him was dismissed.
In 2014, the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) filed a formal disciplinary complaint against respondent charging him with violations of New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct (NJRPC) 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, specifically, official misconduct [*3]under NJ Stat Ann 2C:30-2[a]) and NJRPC 8.4(d) (conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). Respondent, represented by counsel, admitted the material facts alleged by the OAE and admitted the NJRPC 8.4(d) charge.
In July 2015, following a hearing on the NJRPC 8.4(b) charge and appropriate sanction to impose, a District Ethics Committee (DEC) issued a report in which it sustained both of the alleged disciplinary violations and recommended respondent be suspended for three months, one month of which should be suspended.
In mitigation, the DEC considered respondent's past accomplishments (which included his prior career as a Roman Catholic priest), his pro bono and civic work for the Filipino community, his character evidence, the fact that seven years had passed since respondent was first served with the OAE's grievance against him, he cooperated with law enforcement and the OAE, he had no prior disciplinary history, and his sincere remorse.
Here, the New Jersey Supreme Court imposed a three-month suspension which is in general accord with New York precedent involving arguably similar misconduct .
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
The Maryland Court of Appeals has held that a sitting judge reprimanded by the state commission received a fair, although not perfect, hearing with adequate due process
We must decide whether proceedings before the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities (“Commission”) violated a judge’s due process rights. As we explained last year, although we have no appellate jurisdiction to review a judge’s exceptions to the Commission’s determination to issue a public reprimand after public charges and a contested hearing, the common law writ of mandamus provides an avenue for a judge to challenge the fundamental fairness of the proceedings before the Commission. Matter of White, 451 Md. 630, 649–50 (2017) (per curiam) [hereinafter White I]. We previously refrained from deciding the due process claims made by Petitioner, Judge Pamela J. White, because we did not have the full record of the Commission proceedings before us. Id. at 652–53. After review of the complete record, we hold that, although the Commission violated applicable Maryland Rules, these violations did not ultimately deprive Judge White of a fundamentally fair proceeding...
“An accused judge is entitled to a fair proceeding, but not necessarily a perfect proceeding.” White I, 451 Md. at 648. As we have detailed, the proceeding before the Commission certainly was not perfect—several mistakes were made. But in this mandamus proceeding, we look only to whether Judge White received the fundamental due process protections under the Maryland Constitution and our Rules, namely “notice, an opportunity to respond, [and] a fair hearing . . . .” Id. Our careful scrutiny of the record convinces us that she did.
The court noted that the issuance of a reprimand was within the powers of the commission over which it did not exercise appellate review.
The judge had raised objections regarding procedures both in the investigatory and adjudicative process
Certainly, judges facing disciplinary proceedings are entitled to notice of the charges against them. Cf. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Seiden, 373 Md. 409, 416–21 (2003). A judge’s due process rights are violated, for example, when discipline is based on a rule violation that was not charged. Id.; see also In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 550–51 (1968) (attorney discipline charges “must be known before the proceedings commence. . . . [and] become a trap when, after they are underway, the charges are amended on the basis of testimony of the accused.”).
Here though, Judge White was charged with violating MCJC 1.2, and her conduct at the hearings on May 5, 2014 was identified as a basis for the charges. Unlike the respondents in Seiden and Ruffalo, who were not charged with the rule violations they were ultimately found to have committed, Judge White knew that her conduct at this hearing was part of the complaint and would be considered by the Commission. She had notice of the charged misconduct attributed to her behavior at the May 5, 2014 hearing and the Commission’s sanction did not exceed the charges.
Our earlier coverage is linked here.
The judicial complaint involved a judge-lawyer interaction in a civil case that had led to the judge's recusal.
The judge stated
[B]ecause I am incredulous, because I am in disbelief, because I find myself incapable of believing virtually anything that Mr. Jones has just told me, I’m in the unfamiliar territory of finding that I must recuse myself from any further proceedings in this case because I cannot believe anything that the Reverend Rickey Nelson Jones Esquire – I’m reading off the letterhead – tells me. I think that 99% of what Mr. Jones has told me about his conduct on behalf of his client is pure bullshit[.] So I’m forced to recuse myself and I can’t get past the idea that I cannot believe a darn thing that Mr. Jones tells me now. So I am compelled under … Rule 2.11 [of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct] to disqualify myself in any further proceedings in this case, because I now believe based on Mr. Jones’ conduct and representations in this case, in his discussion and exploration of who struck John in recent days about his request for accommodation, all without following the precise instructions and procedures in the Scheduling Order and the website and resources available to him, I find that I cannot be impartial. I am personally biased or prejudiced concerning Mr. Jones and his conduct. So, I’m going to recuse myself.
Notwithstanding her decision to recuse herself from the trial of the Joyner case, Judge White stated that she would preside over the October 31, 2014, hearing regarding the show cause order she had issued because, as she stated, it was her “responsibility to address it.”
Mr. Jones filed multiple complaints concerning Judge White with the Commission beginning on October 20, 2014. Following an investigation, and with the authorization of the Commission, Investigative Counsel filed charges dated March 31, 2016 against Judge White. Investigative Counsel alleged that Judge White had violated various provisions of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct. All of the charges concerned Judge White’s conduct during the three hearings in the Joyner case during 2014.
A hearing was held by the Commission and a reprimand imposed.
Friday, March 23, 2018
The Maryland Court of Appeals found a judge did not engage in misconduct by entering this order with an opinion to follow
WHEREAS, the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities (“Commission”), pursuant to Maryland Rule 18-407 (j) and (k), referred to this Court the case of In the Matter of the Honorable Mary C. Reese, Judge of the District Court of Maryland for Howard County, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Case Nos. CJD 2015-132, CJD 2015-133, and CJD 2015-134 for expedited consideration pursuant to Maryland Rule 18-408(a), and
WHEREAS, the Commission alleged that Judge Reese violated the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Maryland Rules 18-101.1 and 18-102.5, as a result of her presiding over a peace order hearing in the District Court of Maryland sitting in Carroll County, and
WHEREAS, this Court having concluded that the Commission did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Judge Reese lacked the competence and diligence necessary to complete her judicial responsibilities or otherwise committed sanctionable conduct, as defined by Maryland Rule 18-401(j), and
WHEREAS, this Court held Oral Argument on March 6, 2018 and for reasons to be stated in an opinion later to filed, it is this 22nd day of March 2018,
ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals, that this proceeding against Judge Mary C. Reese be, and is, hereby dismissed with prejudice.
The alleged misconduct -reported by WBAL TV 11 - involved comments made from the bench in two domestic violence matters.
Our coverage of the oral argument describes the allegations. (Mike Frisch)
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
An order denying recusal from the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court in a criminal case
Ms. Williams claims that she will not receive a fair trial before Judge D’Apolito, primarily because, she claims, he engaged in an ex parte communication with the alleged victim in this case. Specifically, she states that before a March 2017 hearing on her motion to reduce bond, the judge excluded her from an off-the-record meeting in his chambers with the alleged victim, the prosecutor, and her defense counsel. Ms. Williams believes that the judge’s conduct violated her constitutional and statutory rights and that the judge is biased against her because she is an African-American female and the alleged victim is a white male.
Judge D’Apolito has responded in writing to the affidavit. The judge acknowledges that immediately before the March hearing, he met with the alleged victim and counsel in his chambers. According to the judge, the victim feared for his safety and counsel agreed to a discussion with the victim in chambers to reduce any anxiety. After the five-minute meeting, the alleged victim and counsel proceeded into the courtroom for a hearing on the record, in which both sides were given the opportunity to present their positions on the motion to reduce bond. Judge D’Apolito states that he denied Ms. Williams’s motion based solely on the evidence introduced during the hearing and on the record. The judge believes that he has taken the steps necessary to protect Ms. Williams’s legal rights.
There was no showing necessary for disqualification
Ms. Williams may have other remedies for her disagreement with how the judge handled her bond hearing, but she has not established that the judge’s actions were the product of bias against her.
Monday, March 19, 2018
The Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice granted disqualification of a judge
In July 2015, a jury convicted Mr. Kraus—who was, at the time, a member of the Ohio House of Representatives—of theft from an elderly person. In December 2016, the Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. State v. Kraus, 2016-Ohio-8003, 74 N.E.3d 880 (6th Dist.). In early 2017, Mr. Kraus filed a motion for new trial, a petition to vacate his conviction, and several amendments to the petition. In his filings, Mr. Kraus argues, based on newly discovered e-mails from the Ottawa County prosecuting attorney’s office, that the state of Ohio failed to turn over evidence that he could have used for a selective prosecution defense. For example, Mr. Kraus asserts that a recently released e-mail shows that although the Ottawa County prosecuting attorney had purportedly recused himself from Mr. Kraus’s criminal investigation, the prosecutor communicated with Chris Redfern, who was Mr. Kraus’s 2014 election opponent, about the investigation before Mr. Kraus was indicted. In Mr. Kraus’s words, his recent filings contain “strong evidence of interference with criminal proceedings for political purposes.” Mr. Kraus also asserts that he submitted “evidence of a close social relationship” between Mr. Redfern and Judge Crawford that predates Mr. Kraus’s conviction.
While finding that the judge could be fair and impartial, there was the potential for an appearance of impropriety
Here, Mr. Kraus describes his recent filings as setting forth serious allegations of possible collusive activities for political purposes by the Ottawa County prosecuting attorney, the special prosecutor ultimately assigned to the underlying case, and Chris Redfern. Judge Crawford admits that since Mr. Kraus’s criminal trial, he has socialized with Mr. Redfern and his wife “numerous times,” that a person with whom the judge shares his boat is a “close personal friend” of Mr. Redfern, and that Mr. Redfern has been on the judge’s boat. Given Judge Crawford’s recent familiarity with Mr. Redfern and given the current allegations involving Mr. Redfern, an objective observer might question the ability of Judge Crawford to impartially decide Mr. Kraus’s pending matters. See In re Disqualification of Lewis, 117 Ohio St.3d 1227, 2004-Ohio-7359, 884 N.E.2d 1082, ¶ 8 (explaining that an appearance of impropriety exists “if a reasonable and objective observer would harbor serious doubts about the judge’s impartiality”). Further, considering that Mr. Kraus’s current allegations involve public officials and the integrity of the judicial process, it is best that a visiting judge with no personal connections to the parties or related individuals presides over the pending posttrial issues.
Thursday, March 15, 2018
The Indiana Supreme Court has suspended a circuit court judge for six days without pay.
We find that Respondent, the Honorable Dean A. Young, Judge of the Blackford Circuit Court, engaged in judicial misconduct relating to a temporary restraining order that he heard and issued without adequate notice to the responding party or witnesses, and while he had a specific interest in the subject matter. The Special Masters recommended, and the parties agree, that the appropriate discipline is to suspend Judge Young for six days without pay.
This case arose in 2015 from a disagreeable relationship between Derinda Shady, who was the elected Blackford County Clerk, and the County’s two judges: Circuit Court Judge Young and Superior Court Judge John Barry. The tension culminated in the two Judges holding a restraining-order hearing at which Shady was not present, then issuing a restraining order barring her from the courthouse until the order was vacated six days later.
Shady sought help for funding cuts to her office and the judges declined
Those decisions angered Shady—she told Judge Young, “You can collect your own court costs, too,” and she told Judge Barry that he’d “better bring a cop” if he came to retrieve the files. She apologized a few days later and let the files be transferred without incident. But she also continued referring to the Judges by obscene names in front of office staff and the public. (The Judges knew secondhand of her insolence but took no action.)
After the City Council did not assist
The Council rejected Shady’s staffing appeal, and Shady was rude to Council members afterward—but she made no specific threat not to do her job or to destroy court records. Judge Barry received reports about Shady’s rude behavior and told Judge Young about them, but Judge Young did not see Shady’s behavior firsthand.
The next day
The next morning, August 20, Judge Young arrived at the courthouse at about 7:30 and began making phone calls, including to one of the Council members, asking about Shady’s behavior the previous evening. He then met with Judge Barry and suggested that they “would have a hearing and ‘lock [Shady] out of her office’” if her behavior did not change.
By 8:00 that morning, Judge Young went to the Clerk’s Office to demand that Shady come upstairs to meet with him and Judge Barry. Shady was on the phone at the time, but after her call, she phoned Judge Young and told him “if he had something to say that he could come down to her office.” Judge Young replied, “Get up here! Now!” Shady came upstairs and brought her daughter, Deputy Clerk Patricia Milholland. But Judge Young was unwilling to have Milholland present. At a stalemate, Shady and Milholland went back downstairs after a few minutes, and no meeting happened that day.
Shady went to a hospital that day after a "panic attack"
Beginning at 8:25 a.m., Judges Young and Barry sua sponte began a hearing to enjoin Shady from the Courthouse. There was no written application, affidavit, or verified complaint. Shady had no written notice of the date and time of the hearing or its subject, nor did the Deputy Clerks who were present have prior written notice of the allegations against them before Judge Young questioned them.
At the hearing, with no personal knowledge of the reasons for Shady’s absence, Judge Young stated that she had “stormed out” and “fled the courthouse grounds.” He also stated that the Sheriff was “unable to secure her attendance,” even though there had been no further efforts in that regard—and even though Shady’s daughter Milholland was present. Judge Young also made comments evincing bias against Shady—including that she was “totally poisoning this workplace” and that if she’d made her “bring a cop” comment to him instead of Judge Barry, “she would be here in hunter orange this morning, in chains, where she would stay and enjoy her Thanksgiving dinner, probably her Christmas dinner as well.”
Judge Young then declared an “emergency” that “the Clerk is unfit to assume her duties,” and that she would be “locked out of the entire courthouse square.” He further announced that Shady “will be arrested” if she appeared at the courthouse before the next hearing, which he set for August 26, six days later—even though there had been no evidence or allegations that Shady had threatened to sabotage the Court’s files...
By 1:30 the same afternoon, Judges Young and Barry issued a temporary restraining order (“the TRO”) of Judge Young’s drafting, barring Shady from the courthouse grounds until a hearing set for August 26 at 11:00 a.m. The TRO stated in part that “evidence indicates that [Shady] will refuse to obey the lawful commands of the Courts regarding Court business” and “refuse or sabotage” the Superior Court’s business. Even though Judge Young was the requestor of the TRO, he presided over the hearing and did not disqualify or request appointment of a special judge.
On the morning of August 25, Shady’s attorney called Judges Young and Barry on the phone, seeking a continuance of the next day’s hearing and pointing out “that the case was in an odd posture because the judges were both parties and presiding over the case.” At that point, the Judges sought advice from counsel for the Commission, who recommended that the judges “deescalate the situation and work towards a settlement.” By that afternoon, the TRO was dissolved.
The court on de novo review agreed with the Special Masters findings on misconduct and sanction.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
A very interesting - and well-argued - judicial discipline matter was heard today by the Maryland Court of Appeals.
From WBAL 11 is a report on the allegations
Judge Mary Reese is charged by a state commission with violating the code of judicial conduct.
A state panel that investigates complaints against judges is accusing Reese of judicial misconduct based on comments made from the bench in two domestic violence cases. She heard them in Carroll County.
One case involved a 17-year-old seeking a temporary peace order against her boyfriend. Standing before the judge with a black eye, she explained how she ended her relationship, then he tracked her to a friend's house where he forced his way inside and assaulted her and a friend.
Reese: Has this ever happened before?
Reese: OK, did you have any conversation with him that day?
Petitioner: No. I blocked him from my phone. His phone number is blocked.
Reese: OK, all right. It looks to me like she's taking care of it. OK?
Reese added she needs to find that one form of abuse has occurred, and he's likely to commit the act against her again. Based on past behavior, no, so she is not going to enter the order. The judge advised the teen if it does happen again go to a commissioner's office or come back to the courthouse for relief.
In the other case, regarding a final protective order, Reese advised the petitioner, Lauren Lewis.
"If you pick a fight, you've got to expect to lose it, and when you're -- when you're picking a fight with him and he wants you out of the house or he's -- he wants you out of the car and you're not leaving, then you got to expect to lose the fight. Now, it seems to me you should go back and live with your aunt or your mother until school starts again," Reese said to Lewis.
In her response to the state commission, lawyers for Reese deny she's making unprofessional comments or engaging in unprofessional behavior:
"These charges are a targeted attack on Judge Reese by an advocacy group with a political agenda. The decisions Judge Reese made in cases this group cherry picked for its complaint were legally correct applications of Maryland Statutes to the facts presented to her."
More on judicial discipline in Maryland from the Baltimore Sun.
The commission held a hearing Thursday on charges filed against District Court Judge Mary C. Reese of Howard County. Duker said the case is a perfect example of how long complaints can take.
The Women’s Law Center of Maryland filed two complaints with the commission in July 2015. The commission ruled in April, nearly two years later, that Reese’s actions were “manifesting bias.”
Reese rejected the request of a 17-year-old girl for a temporary peace order against a man who had left her with a black eye visible in the courtroom. The girl told the judge she had blocked the man’s phone number to avoid contact with him.
“It looks to me like she’s taking care of it,” Reese said in court transcripts.
In a different domestic violence case, Reese told a woman that if she picks a fight with her abuser “you’ve got to expect to lose it,” according to transcripts.
In a response to the complaint, Reese called the allegations “a targeted attack on Judge Reese by an advocacy group with a political agenda.” She said she ruled correctly in both cases.
Michelle Daugherty Siri, executive director of the Women’s Law Center of Maryland, said she would not comment because the case is still pending.
The commission said its investigation “revealed sanctionable conduct by Judge Reese with regard to her unprofessional comments and behavior.”
The court was very much engaged in the argument and granted extra time to the advocates.
Oral argument linked here. (Mike Frisch)
Saturday, March 3, 2018
A recently-certified complaint alleging misconduct by a probate judge may be found on the web page of the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct.
The judge was sworn in to fill an unexpired term on July 8, 2014 as a Mahoning County Probate Judge. He was coming from an obviously busy private practice.
One allegation involves his representation of an executor who had apparently depleted estate assets. He warned her that the allegations created a "serious situation that needs your immediate attention."
The executor failed to give the serious matter that required attention.
The accused judge did not report the possible defalcation.
Rather, it is alleged, he presided over that very same case and issue as a probate judge!
The executor's brother filed the complaint.
Not only that.
It is further alleged that he presided over 200 matters in which he had represented parties in private practice, appointed fiduciaries, approved legal fees for himself and his former firm and other activities associated with his private work.
The judge's answer admits most of the factual averments but appears to deny misconduct. The 200 matters were apparently the result of an oversight.
The case is In re: The Complaint Against the Hon. Robert Ruso, Jr. The pleadings can be accessed here. (Mike Frisch)