JQC Files Formal Charges Against Superior Court Judge Robert Reeves

The Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) filed formal charges against Middle Judicial Circuit Supreme Court Judge Robert Reeves on November 16, listing 58 counts of alleged misconduct based on complaints by attorneys and others that the Judge made derogatory remarks in the courtroom, engaged in sexual harassment, and made inappropriate use of his title.

The JQC’s Investigative Panel concluded that “Formal Charges should be filed for the purpose of determining whether Judge Reeves has violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, and if so, whether he has committed willful misconduct in office, exhibited habitual intemperance, and whether his conduct is prejudicial to the administration of justice such that it brings the judicial office into disrepute.”

Charles Boring, Director of the JQC, who filed the notice of formal charges, requested that proceedings be instituted for the purpose of determining whether Judge Reeve’s conduct constitutes violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and if so, the appropriate discipline.

Judge Reeves was formally notified of the alleged misconduct and required to file a verified answer to these charges with the Clerk of the Georgia Supreme Court and to serve a copy to Director Boring within 30 days of notification of the charges. “Failure to answer the formal continued from page

charges shall constitute an admission of the factual allegations pursuant to JQC Rule 21 (A), according to the JQC document regarding the inquiry.

Reeves, who has been on the bench since 2007, serves as the Chief Judge in the Middle Judicial Circuit Supreme Court, which covers Toombs, Candler, Emanuel, Washington, and Jefferson Counties.

In the 60-page JQC document, several narratives of Reeves’ alleged misuse of authority are reported in a variety of situations, each divided by the nature of the offense. Improper and Intemperate Comments The JQC presented Reeves with 17 formal charges related to improper and intemperate comments that the Judge is accused of making while on the bench. In its charges, the Commission argues that Reeves “failed to act in a manner that promotes the public’s confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary,” but that the Judge “failed to establish, maintain, and enforce high standards of conduct, and to personally observe such standards of conduct in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.”

One instance which the JQC listed as evidence of these charges occurred when Reeves reportedly made an inappropriate remark to a Toombs County court attendee while giving instructions to the court attendees prior to excusing them for lunch. According to the JQC, Reeves had told the court attendees to remain seated while he finished his instructions. When an African-American male rose and began to leave the courtroom, Reeves is reported as saying, “Sir, you’re walking and I’m telling you to be still. Are you really that retarded?”

The JQC also lists an instance from March 18, 2022, as evidence for the charges, saying that Reeves made another inappropriate comment while presiding over a criminal calendar in Toombs County. During this instance, it is reported that a jailer asked the Judge when the court would be breaking for lunch, to which Reeves replied : “get the people (inmates) fed? You mean we have to feed these people (inmates)?” The report states that several supporters of the inmates were in the courtroom during this instance, and several became visibly upset after the comment.

In June of this year, Reeves allegedly publicly chastised a female attorney for the Middle Judicial Circuit Public Defender’s Office so intensely that she left the courtroom in tears. At the time of the event, it is reported that the attorney’s office was experiencing extreme staffing shortages, which was causing the attorney to have difficulty with the amount of paperwork required in preparation for the case. After the attorney left, Reeves is reported to have made a comment along the lines of “if you can’t handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” Gender-Based Improper Comments According to the JQC, from at least 2016 through 2022, Judge Reeves allegedly engaged in a pattern of improper behavior that, at a minimum, gave the appearance of constituting sexual harassment and/or bias based upon the gender of various females involved in the Middle Judicial Circuit court system. Several instances of this improper behavior were also cited as evidence for the 20 formal charges regarding these comments.

In one instance, a female employee of the Middle Judicial Circuit’s Public Defender’s Office was walking down a one-way street near the office when Reeves reportedly whistled at her and drove his car the wrong way on the road to approach her. The JQC document stated that once reaching the woman, Reeves made a statement to the effect of, “What’s a pretty girl like you doing walking alone?” The employee, who is reported to be nicknamed “Miss America” by the Judge, warned Reeves that police often ticketed motorists for driving in the wrong direction on that one-way street.

Several instances of misconduct between Reeves and the female employee were listed in the indictment, including reported touching of shoulders, rubbing of the back, and attempted hugging that the female employee stated made her uncomfortable. According to the charges, it is suspected that these instances occurred so often that the employee no longer approaches Reeves alone, and has a coworker join her when conducting business.

Reeves was also reported to have told another female attorney that she needed to choose between being a full-time mother and a full-time attorney because she was unable to accomplish both tasks, as well as making comments about her husband’s back injury he received while on vacation, saying “if you didn’t do the stuff you see on TV…you know one foot on the nightstand and one foot way over here, he wouldn’t hurt his back.”

The charges also listed instances of reported comments made by Reeves about a female Assistant District Attorney’s weight and appearance. After learning of the woman’s participation in a local race, Reeves reportedly said to her: “I knew you would have to be doing something to keep in shape, or you would have started gaining weight.”

The JQC document stated that during these instances, Judge Reeves did, in the performance of his judicial duties, by words and conduct manifest bias and prejudice and engage in harassment, based upon gender. The JQC document also charged that he failed to be dignified and courteous toward a person continued from page

with whom he deals in his official capacity and failed to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. Other Alleged Improper Contact with Court Personnel The JQC presented 10 formal charges against Reeves for other instances of alleged improper contact with court personnel, which stemmed from incidents in which Reeves reportedly asked other court officials to alter their decisions for the benefit of Reeves’s acquaintances.

A few instances discussed reports of Reeves asking judges and solicitors to avoid taking action against defendants for the benefit of these defendants, with whom Reeves was acquainted.

In one alleged incident, Reeves reportedly told an Assistant District Attorney that she should press charges against a law enforcement official for his actions regarding a serious motor vehicle accident. The incident involved a defendant in Emanuel County who left the scene of an accident and later contacted a law enforcement officer with whom he was acquainted to assist as he turned himself into authorities. Reeves allegedly told the Assistant District Attorney that the officer waited too long to relay that information and that she should also charge the law enforcement officer with a crime.

Fundraising and Promotion of Advocacy Center A total of 11 formal charges were brought against Reeves for his participation in a 2015 promotional video for an area non-profit organization, an advocacy facility serving communities in the Middle Judicial Circuit. The employees of the organization regularly testify in the Superior Court of the Middle Judicial Circuit in cases involving child victims, including but not limited to, child sexual and physical abuse cases.

In the video, which the JQC reported was still available for viewing on the Center’s website in June 2022, Reeves appears onscreen with a banner that states, “Judge Bobby Reeves, Superior Court Judge,” as he discusses the benefits of the organizatoion’s work in judicial cases.

It is also reported that Reeves hosted a two-hour fundraiser for the area non-profit organization in December 2020, footage of which was still available online in June 2022. During this fundraiser, Reeves is said to have encouraged viewers to donate to the cause, and even called out lawyers, teachers, and other members of the community to donate. He reportedly challenged lawyers and attorneys to match every $500 donated by the public, and thoroughly discussed the role of the organization in his court.

By participating in these actions, the JQC alleges that Reeves “failed to establish, maintain, and enforce high standards of conduct, and to personally observe such standards of conduct so that the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary is maintained.” Also, the JQC alleges that Reeves lent the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of others and conveyed and enabled others to advance the impression that an organization was in a position to influence him.

The JQC alleges that Reeves engaged in extrajudicial activities that cast doubt on his capacity to impartially decide issues and engaged in activities promoting an organization concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice for which he personally solicited funds during public fundraising activities.

What’s Next

Reeves will continue to serve on the bench unless disciplinary action is taken by the JQC or the Supreme Court. Once the Commission receives his response to the formal charges, a hearing will be held to determine whether the case will go to trial or be dropped. If the case goes to trial, any decision may be appealed in lower courts until it is overseen by the state Supreme Court, who will make the final decision. Because of this, the case may take up to two years to be concluded. Possible outcomes if the Judge is found guilty of these claims are retirement, censure, and suspension or removal from office.

Full Article & Source:
JQC Files Formal Charges Against Superior Court Judge Robert Reeves

Mass. Probate and Family Court judge faces hearing in sexual harassment case

By Jeremy C. Fox

A Massachusetts Probate and Family Court judge is facing formal charges in the state’s highest court over an allegation he sexually harassed a court employee at a work-related event last year, state officials said Friday.

Associate Justice Paul M. Sushchyk denies the allegation that he grabbed the buttock of a female court employee without her consent during a conference for Probate and Family Court judges in April 2019, court documents show. 

After allegedly touching the woman, who was seated at a bar stool inside a pub alongside coworkers, Sushchyk allegedly pulled a silver flask out of his coat pocket and said it contained whiskey, according to the charging documents from the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. 

Sushchyk is scheduled to appear Monday morning in a videoconference hearing of the commission before retired judge Bertha Josephson, appointed as a hearing officer by the state Supreme Judicial Court, the commission said.

The commission alleges that Sushchyk’s actions violated the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct, breaking regulations against harassment and undignified behavior, among other rules, and undermining public confidence in the courts, documents show.

Sushchyk’s alleged behavior “constitutes willful judicial misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and unbecoming a judicial officer, and brings the judicial office into disrepute,” according to the documents.

When presented with the allegations by investigators, Sushchyk allegedly said, “I would never do anything like that,” and, “I would never intentionally hurt anyone, but especially a woman,” according to court documents.

In a statement filed in the case, Sushchyk said he had merely “placed my hand in the direction of” the woman’s bar stool to steady himself as he returned from the men’s room.

He was unsteady on his feet, he said in the statement, because of the combined effects of a past hip replacement, a long day at the conference that had begun with a drive from Central Massachusetts to Cape Cod, eating dinner, and the two whiskey drinks he consumed that evening. 

A filing from his attorney states, “Judge Sushchyk denies that he had any physical contact whatsoever with any part of [the court employee’s] body that evening.”

Sushchyk, of Sterling, was nominated by Governor Charlie Baker to the bench in January 2018. At the time, he was a lawyer in private practice in Worcester County, according to a statement announcing his nomination.

He is a former Sterling police officer, a state trooper in New Hampshire, and he served on the Sterling Select Board from 2000 to 2013, the statement said.

He is a past president of the Worcester County Bar Association and served from 1979 to 2003 in the Army Reserve as a non-commissioned officer and as a commissioned officer with the Judge Advocate Corps, retiring as a judge advocate major, according to the statement.

Full Article & Source:
Mass. Probate and Family Court judge faces hearing in sexual harassment case

New legislation targets judges’ secret investigations of misconduct

By Zach Parker 

The secretive process by which Louisiana judges are investigated or disciplined for misconduct could become more transparent by wresting away the state Supreme Court’s sole power to keep such matters confidential.

That’s the thrust of new legislation co-sponsored by a local lawmaker to make confidential documents and activities of the state Judiciary Commission subject to changes in state law.

Currently, the state Supreme Court sets all rules concerning the Judiciary Commission. Thanks to the Supreme Court, the Judiciary Commission screens its activities from the public.

House Bill 90 could change that. State Rep. Jerome “Zee” Zeringue, R-Houma, and Sen. Jay Morris, R-Monroe, pre-filed HB 90 for consideration during the Legislature’s regular session, which begins March 9.

“I feel like there are some people that do not have as much confidence in the judiciary as the judiciary ought to inspire,” Morris said. “Some of that comes from a lack of transparency. This is aimed at making judges, who are elected officials, as transparent as legislators are.”

Zeringue and Morris’ legislation represented a new approach aimed at making the Judiciary Commission’s discipline of judges more transparent.

During the 2019 regular legislative session, Zeringue proposed legislation that would have required the Judiciary Commission to disclose its records whenever the commission disciplined a judge for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. As Zeringue noted, the legislation did not ask for the disclosure of every complaint, only those in which a judge was ultimately disciplined.

When Zeringue spoke to The Ouachita Citizen last year about the legislation, he noted the judiciary opposed the legislative measure, which ultimately failed.

“They were adamant. They were opposed to it,” he said. “These are elected officials. The public, quite frankly, has a right to know about the demeanor and judgment of these people. They should know if the Judiciary Commission has admonished or issued rulings.”

According to Zeringue and Morris, a common objection to the legislation last year claimed the state Constitution provided that only the judicial branch of government could change the confidentiality of the Judiciary Commission’s documents and proceedings.

“There was an argument put forth that it was unconstitutional,” Morris said. “This is just to alleviate any future concern that transparency measures would not be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is responsible for running the judicial branch. We’re not interested in running the judicial branch but want to be assured that their discipline matters are applied uniformly and are transparent.”

Morris said he knew of several judges who would welcome the change.

“It shouldn’t be terribly controversial,” Morris said. “A lot of judges have run on the issue of transparency, so I’m hopeful it will pass.”

Following the failure of Zeringue’s legislation last year and news reporting by The (Baton Rouge) Advocate about certain Judiciary Commission investigations, the Supreme Court issued a rule change in September 2019 seeking to make the Judiciary Commission more transparent. The change allowed for parties involved in a Judiciary Commission proceeding to publicly discuss the matter once the case was closed. The Judiciary Commission still requires anyone who submits a complaint against a judge to refrain from publicly discussing their complaint.

In an interview at the time with The Ouachita Citizen, Zeringue criticized the rule change for not doing much.

“It essentially grants or allows for limited, not unlimited, ability to discuss, so it doesn’t completely free a complainant to talk without certain conditions,” Zeringue said. “Everyone has a constitutional right to talk about it.”

HB 90 has been assigned to the House and Governmental Affairs Committee.

HB 90 is a constitutional amendment, meaning it cannot succeed without approval from two-thirds of the Legislature.

If approved by the Legislature, the constitutional amendment would be proposed to voters in the fall: “Do you support an amendment to provide that matters related to the confidentiality of documents and proceedings related to disciplinary actions against judges shall be provided by law rather than by rules of the state supreme court?”

Full Article & Source: 
New legislation targets judges’ secret investigations of misconduct

Judge in guardianship case denies claims he is biased

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Albuquerque state District Judge Alan Malott this week shot down a recusal attempt by a woman seeking a new judge in her 4-year-old lawsuit against her mother’s former corporate guardian and conservator.

Judge Alan Malott

Malott ruled that attorneys for Leonie Rosenstiel presented no evidence to show that he couldn’t act impartially in the case and should recuse himself.

Rosenstiel is suing the firm Decades LLC on behalf of her mother, Annette Rosenstiel, who was deemed mentally incapacitated and placed under a court-approved guardianship and conservatorship beginning in 2003.

Rosenstiel’s attorneys contended the judge’s participation earlier this year on two discussion panels about guardianship issues would cause a reasonable person to believe he was biased and unable to fairly and appropriately rule on Rosenstiel’s lawsuit

Rosenstiel, whose mother died in 2012, alleges that the company mismanaged her now-deceased mother’s finances and property, failed to protect her interests, and negligently and improperly handled her mother’s affairs. The case is set for trial in October.

Rosenstiel’s attorneys had questioned, in part, the propriety of Malott’s appearance April 5 on a panel that included members of the guardianship industry. The panel included Greg MacKenzie, an attorney who has represented Decades in Rosenstiel’s case. The luncheon discussion was sponsored by the Albuquerque Lawyers Club.

The panel topic was titled “The Truth Underlying the Reporting on Guardianships/Conservatorships in New Mexico,” and Rosenstiel’s attorneys contended that the explicit purpose of the discussion was to address articles in the Albuquerque Journal about matters “that included Defendants’ (Decades LLC) performance as a guardian or conservator.”

The recusal motion also cited Malott’s March 22 appearance at a public Town Hall on guardianship issues sponsored by the Journal and KANW-FM. Malott was the court’s representative on the panel.

Decades, in its response, stated that Rosenstiel’s lawsuit was never discussed during the Albuquerque Lawyers Club presentation and MacKenzie didn’t organize the event. Rosenstiel’s motion is “filled with suggestion and innuendo, yet fails to present sufficient evidence that would require Judge Malott’s disqualification,” stated Decades’ response.

Malott in his ruling also stated that there was no evidence presented by Rosenstiel’s attorneys to support the conclusions that he was biased.

He pointed to “counsel’s self-serving conjectures that merely participating in these unrestricted and multi-partisan public events establishes improper ‘ex parte’ communications and requires recusal.

“Holding otherwise would discourage a judge from participating in both law-related educational activities and extra-judicial community activities,” he wrote. “It would also discourage the development of a better public understanding of the way courts function and the court’s role in our society.”

Malott added that the parties and their attorneys are “reminded the appropriate place for the trial is in the Bernalillo County Courthouse, not the ‘Court of Public Opinion.’ ”

Full Article & Source:
Judge in guardianship case denies claims he is biased

See Also:
Plaintiff in guardianship case wants the judge to step aside

Law license of former York County probate judge suspended for 2 years

Former York County Probate Court Judge Robert Nadeau.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has suspended the law license of former York County Probate Judge Robert Nadeau for two years for multiple violations of the state’s code of judicial conduct.

The court’s 34-page decision, handed down Tuesday, is the latest setback for Nadeau. He was suspended 30 days last summer while he was still on the bench, then lost his bid for re-election in November.

Nadeau has been operating a law practice in Biddeford, but will not be allowed to practice in Maine for two years beginning Aug. 1. He also must pay a $5,000 fine.

“This is now the fourth time that Judge Nadeau has appeared before us for ethical violations and the third time for conduct that occurred while serving in a judicial capacity,” the court’s ruling states. “Here, his actions were often carried out in an intemperate and vindictive fashion against former colleagues of his law practice and their associates. Attorneys’ reputations were harmed, and litigants before him were pressured to support his efforts to increase court resources and his compensation.”

Despite the ruling, Nadeau defended his record in a statement Tuesday night.

“I am proud to have made a positive difference in the lives of nearly 20,000 children, adult incapacitated persons, and their parents, grandparents, adult children and others during my 16 years of service for York County and its probate court,” Nadeau said in an email. “This is so, despite the probate court’s woeful lack of adequate support and exercise of substantial interference by its county commissioners and despite the unfortunately high degree of politicization of Maine’s elected private judges by those commissioners, their uninformed manager and probate register, the York County bar, and others who oppose an elected judiciary.”

Nadeau was first elected as probate judge in York County in 1996. He served three four-year terms before losing re-election in 2008. However, he won back his seat in 2012.

The most recent allegations against him were detailed in a report filed Jan. 16, 2016, by the state’s Committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability, which governs members of the bar.

Full Article & Source:
Law license of former York County probate judge suspended for 2 years

Plaintiff in guardianship case wants the judge to step aside

Judge Alan Malott

The daughter of a deceased Albuquerque author suing a commercial guardian and conservator firm is questioning the impartiality of the judge in the case, citing in part his appearance in April with representatives of the guardianship industry at an Albuquerque Lawyers Club panel discussion.

Attorneys for Leonie Rosenstiel are asking District Judge Alan Malott to recuse himself from presiding over her lawsuit against Decades LLC in part because of his participation on a panel whose explicit purpose “was to address newspaper articles about matters that included the Defendants’ (Decades LLC) performance as a guardian or conservator,” according to a motion filed May 15.

The panel discussion was titled “The Truth Underlying the Reporting on Guardianships/Conservatorships in New Mexico.”

The panel’s membership included Gregory MacKenzie, one of the lawyers who has been representing Decades in the pending lawsuit filed by Rosenstiel in 2013. Rosenstiel’s lawsuit contends that Decades and its CEO, Nancy Oriola, were negligent in handling her mother’s assets and in administering her guardianship and conservatorship.

Decades served as Annette Rosenstiel’s court-appointed guardian and conservator from 2003 until her death at the age of 100 – according to court records – in 2012. She had previously been deemed mentally incapacitated by a judge and in need of a guardian and conservator.

The Journal published a series late last fall titled “Who Guards the Guardians?” but didn’t mention Rosenstiel’s mother’s case by name.

Decades and MacKenzie were mentioned in the series because they were involved in another controversial guardian/conservator case.

Malott has set a June 26 hearing on the matter and “all parties will have an opportunity to be heard,” said court executive officer James Noel on Friday. “Subsequently, the Court will make its ruling.”

The Code of Judicial Conduct encourages judges in New Mexico to “engage in appropriate extrajudicial activities” to the “extent that time permits, and judicial independence and impartiality are not compromised.”

The recusal motion filed on May 15 contends that Malott’s “participation in the April 5 panel would cause a reasonable person to question the Judge’s impartiality” and that rules governing judges require him to step aside if that’s the case.

Malott appeared at the lunch meeting panel discussion of the Albuquerque Lawyers Club, a group of attorneys that has informal discussions about legal matters. Other panelists were MacKenzie; Mary Galvez, a professional guardian who is also frequently appointed by judges as a court visitor to advise whether guardianships are needed; and an elder law attorney, Ellen Leitzer.

Panelists, including Malott, were critical of the Journal series.

Leitzer and Galvez have both worked with MacKenzie and Decades’ CEO Oriola “to lobby on behalf of the elements of the commercial guardianship industry in, among other matters, vigorously resisting even modest efforts to improve transparency in guardianship proceedings,” Rosenstiel’s motion contends.

The membership of that panel “was slanted in favor of the commercial guardianship industry,” Rosenstiel’s motion states. Malott’s “mere participation” with attorney MacKenzie “conveys the impression that the Defendants are in a position to influence the Judge.”

The motion also cites statements Malott made as a panelist during a public town hall on guardianships held March 22 and sponsored by the Albuquerque Journal and KANW-FM. Malott appeared as the court’s representative.

That panel’s membership was more diverse than the attorneys’ club panel, Rosenstiel’s motion states, but Malott told the audience that although state law requires all records in guardian/conservator cases to be kept secret, he personally believed only medical and financial information should be sequestered. That “directly relates to confidentiality issues pending before the Court in this (Rosenstiel’s civil case against Decades),” the recusal motion states.

The motion also notes that an attorney for Decades sent Malott a letter about the case in 2014 without notifying Rosenstiel or her attorney. The judge later noted in an order that the defendants sought no special consideration from him and none was given, stated that all communications with him should be filed motions or related to scheduling matters.

Sealed documents

Malott hasn’t yet ruled on the Albuquerque Journal’s motion to open the 20-some sealed filings in Rosenstiel’s lawsuit against Decades – a request echoed by Rosenstiel and her attorneys. Malott recently permitted public inspection of portions of Decades’ response to the Journal motion for unsealing, which was filed in late March. He redacted other portions.

Decades contends that the records in the case should be kept confidential to protect the privacy of Annette Rosenstiel, even after her death. Rosenstiel, who published various articles and books, was married to a New York financial heavyweight, Raymond S. Rosenstiel.

Decades added that they welcomed a public trial on Rosenstiel’s lawsuit, but could not get one if the Journal is allowed to report on the court filings prior to trial.

The Journal and Leonie Rosenstiel argue that the case is a straightforward malpractice civil lawsuit and is improperly sealed. The only privacy interest being protected, they say, is Decades’.

Full Article & Source:
Plaintiff in guardianship case wants the judge to step aside See Also: Journal Seeks to Open Guardian Mismanagement Lawsuit