Text message contradicts ex-court administrator’s testimony in Judge Tim Horton’s defense

Judge Tim Horton

The former administrator for Franklin County Common Pleas Court testified Tuesday that Judge Tim Horton’s bailiff didn’t tell him that she had been sexually harassed by the judge before she resigned and filed a formal complaint in October 2014.

The testimony, at a disciplinary hearing for Horton at the Ohio Judicial Center, was challenged during cross-examination by Casey Russo, an assistant disciplinary counsel.

She produced a text message that then-bailiff, Elise Wyant, sent to the administrator, Atiba Jones.

Wyant wrote in the text that she had to “ditch” the judge during a night of drinking because he was making her “uncomfortable with comments and touching.”

Jones testified that, after speaking with Wyant, he attributed the incident to the close friendship she shared with the judge, with whom she often went to bars for happy hour.

“I followed up and I said, ‘What specifically is happening?’ and she said, ‘Oh, it’s just him being him ... You know how he is. He’s just annoying’ ... I didn’t go farther than that because I had witnessed him being annoying and obnoxious” when he was drinking, Jones said.

Wyant’s complaint alleged that Jones, with whom she had a brief romantic relationship, failed to act on her complaints about the judge.

Jones, who resigned two days after Wyant submitted her resignation and complaint, was among the witnesses called by Horton’s lawyers as part of their defense of the judge. The hearing before a three-member panel of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Conduct began with three days of testimony in July and is expected to conclude with Horton taking the stand Thursday.

Horton, 48, was a Franklin County Common Pleas judge from 2006 until 2014, when he won election to the county’s Court of Appeals, a judgeship he still holds.

Wyant’s complaint — in which she also accused Horton of requiring her to do campaign work on county time and on county equipment — triggered a series of investigations. In January, the Supreme Court disciplinary counsel filed a complaint containing three charges of professional misconduct against Horton.

Pat Sheeran, the former administrative judge for Common Pleas Court, testified that he passed along information to the disciplinary counsel after leading an internal investigation of Wyant’s complaint.

“If I didn’t think there was a strong potential for a violation,” Sheeran said, “I wouldn’t have made the referral.”

If the panel finds that Horton engaged in misconduct, it will recommend discipline, which could include a suspension or disbarment. The Supreme Court will make the final decision.

Full Article & Source:
Text message contradicts ex-court administrator’s testimony in Judge Tim Horton’s defense

NBC 10 I-Team: Day two of disciplinary hearing for RI judge

Click for Video

A local judge faces complaints over how he treats people in the courtroom.

That was the focus of day two in the hearing of Judge Rafael Ovalles.

Ovalles is facing complaints, including harassing women at work, having his hand in his unzipped pants in his office, sleeping on his desk, and treating people poorly.

A panel of judges and lawyers from the Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline is hearing the case that is expected to last weeks.

Ovalles denies the allegations.

His lawyers say he's a demanding judge.

They say there is no evidence to support any of the allegations against him.

However, Public Defender Rebecca Aitchison testified Tuesday, "The judge was very, in my opinion, abusive towards me, specifically verbally and in his actions."

Aitchison says, unlike any other judge, Ovalles often criticized her in court and told her not to leave the courtroom without permission.

"Judge Ovalles told me I was to stay in my seat without permission and that's why I had to ask, I had to stand up in open court and ask to use the bathroom," Aitchison testified.

Ovalles' lawyer pointed out that other attorneys would ask the judge for permission to leave the courtroom.

The situation reached the point where Aitchison's bosses had meetings with Ovalles, and the public defender’s office changed which lawyer would be in Ovalles' courtroom, said John Lovoi, who was the Chief Criminal Public Defender at the time.

Lovoi testified, "The decision was made to make sure that a male attorney was going to be replacing her."

Public defenders also complained about how Ovalles handled cases.

"It slowed down the entire judicial process and could extremely adversely affect my clients," Andrew McElroy testified.

Public Defender Megan Jackson said she once complained to Ovalles that he always took her cases last.

Jackson testified that Ovalles' response was, "That he was going to consider holding me in contempt."
Several court workers claim Ovalles spoke to them about their eye contact with him.

Public Defender Angela Yingling testified Ovalles once talked to her, “to tell me I had to work on my eye contact and that I blinked too much."

Courtroom Sheriff Jason Kloc testified, "He told me you need to make more eye contact with me."

After months of our reporting on the case, Judge Ovalles filed a civil lawsuit against the I-Team's Parker Gavigan, NBC 10 and our parent company, Sinclair Broadcast Group.

Ovalles claims defamation and invasion of privacy.

NBC 10 and Sinclair have filed a counterclaim, alleging Ovalles abused Rhode Island's judicial investigation process for wrongful purposes, and to intimidate witnesses.

Full Article & Source:
NBC 10 I-Team: Day two of disciplinary hearing for RI judge

'I failed the judiciary,' judge reportedly says at his discipline hearing

TRENTON — Former Mercer County Presiding Judge Gerald Council apologized to the state Supreme Court Wednesday during a hearing on his disciplinary case, in which he is accused of inappropriately touching and demeaning a subordinate, the New Jersey Law Journal reported.

"I'm embarrassed to be here," Council told the high court, reported by the New Jersey Law Journal. "I don't know how I ended up being here. I failed the judiciary. I failed my family. I've worked hard to be the best judge I can be," he said. "I certainly meant no malice nor harm to anyone."

In September, the state's Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC), in a 56-page presentment, found "clear and convincing" evidence that Council inappropriately touched a court employee twice in 2012, which led to her being demeaned, belittled and publicly humiliated.

The committee recommended Council - who has since transferred to Middlesex County - be suspended for one month and possibly removed from his leadership role. The committee then sent the matter to the Supreme Court for a hearing.

The law journal reported ACJC Counsel Tracie Gelbstein asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to suspend Council for one month without pay for his "highly offensive" behavior.

Council's attorney, Alan Bowman, said Council understands that the charges against him are serious and that he carries "the mantle of the public trust," the law journal reported.

The incidents in which Council allegedly touched the employee, identified only as A.J, occurred in a two-week period in 2012 during and after sessions of Mercer County Drug Court, which Council led.

The first, during a social event for a new judge in the courthouse, witnesses told the committee that Council put his hand on A.J's upper back in an effort to move her out of the room and directed her to get back to work, the ACJC committee report said.

The second incident, which the committee found more egregious, occurred after a drug court staff meeting. Council grabbed A.J.'s ear and pulled her from the room, saying, "come on, come on," the committee alleged.

One witness heard Council refer to the employee as, "my troubled child" as he led her out.

In November, Council sought and was granted a transfer to the family division of the Middlesex County Superior Court.

Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw took over Council's position as the new presiding judge in Mercer County.

Full Article & Source:
'I failed the judiciary,' judge reportedly says at his discipline hearing

Broward judge in PBC court, fighting for career

A Broward County judge, who was convicted of DUI last year by a Palm Beach County jury, is back in court this morning, fighting to make sure the conviction doesn’t destroy her judicial career.

Broward County Circuit Court Judge Cynthia Imperato, right,

While Circuit Court Judge Cynthia Imperato agreed to pay a $5,000 fine, to be suspended without pay for 20 days and to be publicly reprimanded, the Florida Supreme Court said it wanted more information about the events that surrounded her November 2013 arrest in Boca Raton. It ordered the Judicial Qualifications Commission to conduct a full hearing and determine the appropriate punishment.

A six-member panel is hearing evidence at the Palm Beach County  Courthouse about whether the 58-year-old tried to use her position to avoid arrest when she was pulled over by Boca police on Palmetto Park Road after attending a networking event sponsored by justice associations in Palm Beach and Broward counties. The panel is also weighing her behavior, such as refusing a Breathalyzer, during the arrest. A decision won’t be made for at least two months.

Her attorney David Rothman argued that Imperato, a former prosecutor who has been on the bench since 2003, has been punished enough. She has been pilloried in the press, he said. Further, he said, she has accepted full responsibility for her actions. Ignoring her attorney’s advice, she pulled the plug on an appeal of her conviction and served her 20-day sentence on house arrest. She even apologized to the officers who arrested her, he said.

Attorney David McGee, who is representing the judicial watchdog group in the proceedings, argued that the DUI arrest wasn’t her first. She was arrested in Tallahassee, where she worked as a police officer, shortly before graduating from law school in 1988.

Full Article & Source:
Broward judge in PBC court, fighting for career

Judges' disciplinary hearing still months away

BLOOMINGTON — A year after they were accused of violating rules of judicial conduct, two McLean County judges remain months away from a public hearing on the allegations related to their personal relationship.

In a July 2014 complaint from the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board, judges Scott Drazewski and Rebecca Foley were accused of engaging in an undisclosed extramarital affair during the time Drazewski presided over a trial involving Foley's former husband, Joe Foley, a Bloomington lawyer.

Both judges have denied the allegations outlined in a 13-page complaint.

In their motion to dismiss the charges, Drazewski and Foley argued in September that the state lacks any evidence to prove that their relationship affected Drazewski's ability to be impartial in any cases he handled.

Foley contends that the accusations contain no facts that she, or any other judge aware of the relationship, were obliged to report Drazewski's alleged misconduct.

Judicial Inquiry Board lawyer John Gallo said Thursday that the state and attorneys for the judges have been engaged in the discovery process and that a hearing date could be set when lawyers discuss the case in September.

The detailed complaint outlines how the judges allegedly allowed their personal relationship to influence their judicial conduct and judgment. Drazewski was cited for his alleged failure to disqualify himself from the proceedings involving Foley's husband.

Foley's rule violation came after she did not initiate disciplinary measures against Drazewski when she became aware of his conduct, the complaint alleges.

It is not unusual for the complaint process to extend beyond a year with the state Judicial Inquiry Board. A confidential investigation precedes the filing of charges and is followed by a lengthy discovery process that allows each side to prepare for a public hearing before the state Courts Commission.

The Judicial Inquiry Board will serve as prosecutor at the hearing. Drazeweski and Foley each face potential sanctions of a reprimand, censure, suspension with or without pay, removal or retirement from office.

The judges, who are now divorced from their spouses, remain on the bench.

The filing of a formal complaint against a judge happens infrequently in Illinois. Between 1972 and 2014, a total of 89 complaints have been filed, including allegations against six judges in the 11th Judicial Circuit that includes McLean, Ford, Woodford, Logan and Livingston counties.  

Earlier this year, a state audit found that the Judicial Inquiry Board had a backlog of 311 pending complaints at the end of the 2014 fiscal year. Staff reductions left the agency struggling to deal with the more than 400 complaints forwarded to the board each year.  (Continue Reading)

Full Article & Source:
Judges' disciplinary hearing still months away

Testimony begins in hearing on Judge Angela Stokes courtroom behavior

(Click Above to View Video )

CLEVELAND, OH (WOIO) - Opening statements in the disciplinary case against suspended Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Angela Stokes painted far different pictures of her work on the bench.

Attorney Robert Caligiuri of the Disciplinary Counsel told the three Judge panel, "When a person, any person walked into Judge Stokes courtroom 15C in Cleveland Municipal Court they walked into a different universe where rudeness, impatience, judicial incompetence, disrespect and disorder ruled the day." 

He used played video of Stokes berating an attorney in the following exchange, 'I am tired of this nonsense, you are out of order. You are out of order counsel. I gave your client a break by only ordering two days of this sentence into execution.'

The question before the Disciplinary Council is whether the behavior is abusive enough for Judge Stokes to be removed from the bench.

The strategy of Judge Stokes defense team seems to be that all the things the Disciplinary Council cites in it's complaint against her were secretly collected by Presiding Judge Ronald Adrine and his predecessor Judge Larry Jones and were part of a plot to get her off the bench.

Attorney Paul Daiker claims, "The evidence will show that Judge Adrine recruited and rewarded a number of individuals willing to bear false witness against Judge Stokes."

Judge Jones was the first witness saying he tried many times to have her correct her courtroom behavior saying, "It would work for two weeks, three weeks."  He says his concern was her treatment of others.  He cited several examples "leaving the court house at 6 o'clock, 7 o'clock, 8 o'clock and again it's unfair to them and also as I indicated it's unfair to the public."

Stokes law license is currently suspended temporarily. The panel hearing testimony will make a recommendation to the Ohio Supreme Court who will make a final decision.

Full Article, Video & Source:
Testimony begins in hearing on Judge Angela Stokes courtroom behavior

See Also:
Cleveland Municipal Judge Angela Stokes needs to surrender her gavel: editorial 

Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Angela Stokes barred from hearing criminal cases 

Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Angela Stokes says she will defend against court complaint recommending she undergo psych exam

Documents: Sims, attorney had adversarial relationship

Judge Sheva Sims

Shreveport City Court Judge Sheva Sims could be suspended for 90 days without pay if the Louisiana Supreme Court agrees with the findings of the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana.

Sims, who was re-elected to the District D bench Nov. 4, is accused of holding former Assistant City Prosecutor Katherine Gilmer in contempt of court after she refused to meet with Sims in her chambers about an administrative, non-emergency matter.

Sims also is accused of not following proper contempt procedures and dismissing 15 criminal cases — several involving domestic abuse battery, resisting an officer and criminal mischief charges — without taking evidence and having the authority to do so. She also is accused of failing to cooperate with the Office of Special Counsel during the investigation.

Sims, who appeared before commission Sept. 19, could not be reached for comment.

According to the court documents, she disputed holding Gilmer in contempt of court and testified that she did not out-right dismiss the cases, just rescheduled them.

The Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, a constitutional fact-finding body which cannot discipline judges, filed its recommendation with the the Louisiana Supreme Court's Clerk of Court Office Dec. 2. The matter is on the Louisiana Supreme Court's docket for 9:30 a.m. Jan. 29.

Attorney John Settle said he filed the original complaint in May 2012 after reading an article with no byline about dismissal of the cases.

"That kind of action is not explainable, excusable and should not be tolerated," he said. "I'm disappointed that the recommendation was not more severe and I'm hoping that the Supreme Court will take more severe action."

According to court documents obtained from Settle and the Louisiana Supreme Court's Clerk of Court Office, the disciplinary recommendation stems from an April 2012 incident between Gilmer and Sims. The judge was formally charged in Sept. 25, 2013.

The commission alleges Sims engaged in judicial misconduct and failed to uphold the integrity of the office. Gilmer, who now works at the firm Elton B. Richie and Associates, LLC., said she has seen the recommendation but did not wish to comment.

Sims was elected on Nov. 19, 2011, and had been a judge for less than six months at the time of the alleged incident which took place April 24, 2012.

The documents, in which the commission lays out its findings and portions of testimony offered during its investigation, portray Sims and Gilmera as foes whose adversarial relationship continued after Sims became judge.

In its filings the commission alleges Sims describes Gilmer's behavior during one court case as "rude and disrespectful." City Attorney Terri Scott, who also testified in the matter, intervened between the two women following a disagreement about how Sims handled drivers' license forfeitures and other administrative issues.

Scott also did not respond to requests via telephone or email for comment.

According to the filing, Scott communicated to Sims, her assistant prosecutors and other other judges her desires to be included in all meeting requests with her staff and to contact her about administrative issues.

Days before the April 24 incident, the court's judicial administrator emailed Gilmer requesting a meeting on Sims' behalf, according to the documents. Sims testified she asked for that meeting to discuss courtroom proceedings and because Gilmer did not respond to her secretary's earlier attempt to arrange one. She claimed not to be aware of Scott's directive until Scott sent a letter making the request, according to the documents.

Gilmer inquired about the nature of the meeting, copying Scott in the email. Scott again intervened and unsuccessfully attempted to contact Sims, the documents allege.

On April 24, 2012, Gilmer appeared in Sims' court for another legal matter when Sims again attempted to meet with her.

According to the documents, Gilmer called Scott, who allegedly told her not to go, according to the documents. Sims allegedly waited 20 minutes before approaching Gilmer to personally request, several times, a meeting. Gilmer refused and asked if the judge contacted Scott. Sims went to her bench and made the request again.

Full Article & Source:
Documents: Sims, attorney had adversarial relationship

LETTER: Amendment would make discipline proceedings public only if probable cause is found

 

6/6/2014 

 

Dear Editor,

Thank you for devoting space to two statewide judicial reform initiatives in the story “Let more citizens judge the judges?” in the May 30, 2014 issue.

Based on judicial discipline commission annual reports, the total percentage of all dismissals by the commission from 2003 to 2012 is actually 97 percent. The 89.5 percent figure that I used regards only those complaints that were dismissed without the commission even considering the merits.

Those percentages do not account for complaints that were not filed because the commission inappropriately discouraged individuals from filing complaints. During that 10-year period, the commission received more than 15,000 phone calls and had additional contact via its website. The commission regularly misinformed people that it could not proceed on complaints that were based on appealable orders.
 
The Colorado Constitution states that a judge may be disciplined for any violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. If a judge violates the Code of Judicial Conduct in an appealable order he may be disciplined. Unfortunately, the constitution provides the Supreme Court with procedural rule-making authority. In the 1980s, the Supreme Court made a rule requiring the executive director of the discipline commission to dismiss any complaint based on an order that can be appealed. The overbroad rule is directly contrary to the constitution, and is why there has not been a published case of judicial discipline in Colorado since 1986.

The Honest Judge Amendment would only make discipline proceedings public if probable cause is found. Other states such as Washington use the probable cause standard for determining when a case becomes public.
 
I actually contacted Luis Toro before I started Clean Up The Courts. He informed me his group focuses solely on executive and legislative branch officials. Stacy Carpenter says the public should receive more information on judges but opposes discipline proceedings becoming public. Her statements are inconsistent.

Neither Toro nor Carpenter have listened to or responded to the research and facts in support of the initiatives. Even the two-thirds amount is supported by research.

They claim, without support, that qualified judicial candidates will not be found if the system is changed. Have they considered that people might not currently be applying because they do not want to be associated with what is going on in Colorado’s judicial branch? Have they considered that more qualified candidates might be attracted to the integrity and honor of an ethical and accountable judiciary?

Have they considered the possibility that many appellate court judges in Colorado should not be on the bench? After all, those judges are aware of the unconstitutional rule protecting them from discipline and they choose to do nothing to correct it. All members of the legal profession have the duty to uphold the constitution and the Rules of Professional Conduct. I am upholding my duties by pursuing these initiatives.

More information is available at www.CleanUpTheCourts.org. If a reader wants to ensure discussion over these topics continues, petitions can be downloaded and mailed in to help these initiatives get on the ballot. The public should be provided with the opportunity to vote for an ethical and accountable judiciary.

Chris Forsyth
Clean Up The Courts

 Full Article & Source:

LETTER: Amendment would make discipline proceedings public only if probable cause is found

Embattled Family Court Judge Steven Jones headed back to public payroll

Family Court Judge Steven Jones is going back on the payroll of the taxpayers.

His three-month suspension without pay over his mishandling of a romantic relationship with the late former prosecutor Lisa Willardson ends Friday, which means the judge is again eligible to receive his $200,000 salary until his term expires at the end of the year.

Jones, who is not running for re-election, now goes back to being suspended with pay as a result of his federal investment fraud indictment.

The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline suspended Jones without pay Feb. 3 for three months after finding that he had violated professional rules of conduct by carrying on the relationship with Willardson when she appeared before him in 2011 as a deputy district attorney.

Willardson was found dead at her Henderson home Dec. 26, and the coroner later concluded she died of an accidental drug overdose.

Jones got a break from the judicial commission this week when it gave him an additional 90 days to respond to another misconduct complaint.

Attorney James Jimmerson, who had been representing Jones in his fight with the commission, has withdrawn as his lawyer, and his new attorney Sigal Chattah needed more time to get familiar with the case, according to Paul Deyhle, the commission’s executive director.

The second misconduct case, launched in 2006, includes allegations Jones was involved in several investment schemes, associated with felons, improperly handled drug evidence and once had an “intimate relationship” with a law student who worked for him.

Jones is set to stand trial in the federal case next month, but defense lawyers are moving for another continuance.

At a status check in the case Thursday, lawyers for the other defendants charged with Jones told U.S. Magistrate Judge George Foley Jr. that they are not prepared to go to trial June 3 because they are still poring through the mass of evidence the government turned over in the case. Foley gave the lawyers until Monday to file a new motion to continue the trial.

The judge’s defense lawyer in the federal case, Robert Draskovich, said he opposes another trial delay.

Jones and the five other defendants, including his former brother-in-law Thomas Cecrle, were indicted by a federal grand jury in Las Vegas in October 2012 in what authorities said was a $3 million investment scheme from 2002 to 2012.

In the indictment, prosecutors alleged Jones used the power of his office to further the investment scheme and intervened on Cecrle’s behalf to prevent or delay legal processes against him.

Earlier this month prosecutors said they have evidence that Jones “used his position and influence” as a judge twice in 2006 to get Cecrle released on his own recognizance in a felony bad check case, though local prosecutors had asked that he be kept in jail on no bail.

Freeing Cecrle allowed the decade-long investment scheme involving the judge to move forward, prosecutors alleged.

Full Article & Source:
Embattled Family Court Judge Steven Jones headed back to public payroll

See Also:
Judge Steven Jones' romance allegations to come before panel

Family Court judge to face disciplinary hearing in December

Judge Jones tries to stop discipline hearing over alleged mishandled relationship

Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Angela Stokes barred from hearing criminal cases

Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Angela Stokes -- who's been under investigation for allegations that she abused court staff, lawyers and defendants -- will no longer hear criminal cases beginning Monday. 

The municipal court's administrative judge, Ronald Adrine, made the decision Friday, according to court papers. The move follows continuing complaints about Stokes' behavior and a dramatic decision by the Cuyahoga County Public Defender's to seek a motion to transfer cases -- and its lawyers -- from her courtroom. The public defender's municipal division represents indigent clients charged with such things as petty theft, assault, DUI, domestic violence and driving under suspension. 

Adrine will handle Stokes' current cases (visiting Judge Mabel Jasper will help with the case load next week). Future criminal cases that would have normally been assigned to Stokes will be divided among the court's 11 other judges who handle similar dockets. These cases will boost each judge's workload by about 8 percent.

Stokes will continue to be assigned civil cases, which include small claims, and she will continue to review civil cases handled by magistrates. Civil cases represent only a small fraction of a municipal court judge's docket.

In October, the Supreme Court of Ohio's Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a lengthy complaint against Stokes. The 49-page complaint charges she abuses court resources, lawyers, court staff and defendants who appear before her. The complaint is based in part on 337 incident reports filed in municipal court against Stokes. The complaint recommends to the Ohio Supreme Court's Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline that Stokes be ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination because she may be "suffering from a mental illness that substantially impairs her ability to perform her duties as a judicial officer."

Full Article & Source:
Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Angela Stokes barred from hearing criminal cases 

See Also:
Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Angela Stokes says she will defend against court complaint recommending she undergo psych exam

Panel seeks ouster of judge who didn’t reveal conflicts; she calls probate-court cases ‘ministerial’

A New York judge who has served on the state's probate court for more than a decade should be removed because she failed to reveal conflicts and recuse herself on multiple occasions, a disciplinary panel has recommended.

Previously censured in 2007 for her testimony before the State Commission on Judicial Conduct in support of a now-disbarred former state supreme court judge, the respondent, Albany County Surrogate's Court Judge Cathryn M. Doyle, 60, didn't learn from this experience that she needed to be more careful about the appearance of impropriety, says the commission's administrator in a written statement provided to the Albany Times Union. .

"From 2007 to 2011, Judge Doyle failed to disqualify herself from, and took judicial action in, nine matters involving attorneys with whom she had close professional and personal relationships," said the commission in a written opinion filed with the state Court of Appeals.

Full Article and Source:
Panel seeks ouster of judge who didn’t reveal conflicts; she calls probate-court cases ‘ministerial’

Judge Steven Jones' romance allegations to come before panel

After months of delays, the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline finally gets a chance Monday to hear allegations that suspended Family Court Judge Steven Jones mishandled a romantic relationship with a prosecutor who appeared before him.

Jones plans to hold back no punches in his bid to avoid losing his longtime seat on the bench.
He has subpoenaed a slew of fellow judges, including Chief District Judge Jennifer Togliatti and Chief Family Court Judge Gloria O’Malley, to testify during his defense in the weeklong hearing in the boardroom of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority.

“Judge Jones looks forward to working with the Judicial Discipline Commission to demonstrate his continued fitness as a sitting judge,” said his lead lawyer, James J. Jimmerson.

Jones fought to derail the hearing for months, arguing the commission violated its own rules and his due process rights during its investigation into the misconduct allegations.

Attorneys for the commission have their own headliners waiting in the wings to testify at the hearing, including former District Attorney David Roger and the two deputies who helped expose the relationship between Jones and the prosecutor, Lisa Willardson.

Roger removed Willardson from handling child abuse and neglect cases before Jones after the relationship became public in October 2011 and appeared to invite a professional conflict of interest for both Willardson and the judge.

Roger later fired Willardson.

More than a year later, in December 2012, commission attorneys filed a 12-count complaint against Jones, accusing him of violating Nevada’s Judicial Code of Conduct.

Full Article and Source:
Judge Steven Jones' romance allegations to come before panel

See Also:
Family Court judge to face disciplinary hearing in December

Judge Jones tries to stop discipline hearing over alleged mishandled relationship

Justices refuse to delay disciplinary hearing of Judge Jones

The Nevada Supreme Court Friday rejected the latest attempt by suspended Clark County District Judge Steven Jones to delay a disciplinary hearing scheduled to begin Dec. 2 in Las Vegas.

The court said a postponement of the hearing by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline is not warranted.

The unanimous ruling said among other things that Jones failed to show he would suffer "irreparable or serious injury" if the stay was denied. The court upheld the ruling of District Judge Kathleen Delaney, who dismissed the latest legal action by Jones.

Jones is accused of presiding over cases involving the son of his girlfriend, Deputy District Attorney Lisa Willard, in which she was involved. Jones has denied the allegation.

The commission originally set the hearing for March 11 this year and then rescheduled it for June 24. Jones had filed suits saying his constitutional rights were violated during the investigation by the commission.

Full Article and Source:
Justices refuse to delay disciplinary hearing of Judge Jones

Ex-judge Hale’s punishment not enough, Supreme Court says

A six-month suspension of former Franklin County Environmental Court Judge Harland Hale’s law license isn’t punishment enough, the Ohio Supreme Court declared today.

In an unusual move, the justices rejected the recommended punishment and sent the case back to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline for further proceedings, “including consideration of a more severe sanction.”

Hale has admitted that he committed judicial misconduct by dismissing a speeding ticket in December 2011 for a lawyer who represented him in state and federal lawsuits. The judge, who sat on the bench for a decade, announced his retirement on May 9, one week after the disciplinary counsel filed a complaint against him. He said then he wanted to continue his career as a lawyer.

Hale had reached a “discipline by consent” agreement with the high court’s disciplinary counsel. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline approved the agreement on Oct. 14 and recommended it to the Supreme Court.

Hale dismissed a speeding ticket for attorney Patrick M. Quinn, who was representing him in sexual-harassment lawsuits. The judge threw out the ticket “without any involvement from the prosecutor or Quinn” and signed a judgment that “falsely stated: Prosecutor dismisses,” the agreement says.

About four months later, he engaged in improper communication about the case by contacting Quinn and Chief City Prosecutor Lara Baker-Morrish. He asked each to sign an entry indicating that the ticket was dismissed “with the consent of the Columbus city attorney's office and the defendant.” Baker-Morrish refused.

Hale eventually vacated the dismissal and removed himself from the case. Quinn pleaded guilty and paid a $55 fine and $116 in court costs on the day that the judge stepped aside.

Quinn represented Hale in three lawsuits stemming from complaints of inappropriate behavior against the judge by a court employee and a defendant in a drunken-driving case. All three cases were settled out of court.

Full Article and Source:
Ex-judge Hale’s punishment not enough, Supreme Court says

See Also:
Ex-judge Hale agrees to six-month law license suspension

Ohio Judge Accused of Misconduct for Dismissing His Own Lawyer's Speeding Ticket

Ohio: Judge Accused of Dismissing His Lawyer's Traffic Ticket Quits

Ex-judge Hale agrees to six-month law license suspension

Former Franklin County Environmental Court Judge Harland H. Hale will be suspended from practicing law for six months if the Ohio Supreme Court accepts an agreement he reached with the court’s disciplinary counsel.

The agreement includes an admission by Hale that he committed judicial misconduct by dismissing a speeding ticket in December 2011 for a lawyer who represented him in state and federal lawsuits.

Hale, who sat on the bench for a decade, announced his retirement on May 9, one week after the disciplinary counsel filed a complaint against him over the incident. He said at the time that he would continue his career as a lawyer.

Hale was scheduled for a September hearing before a three-member panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, but instead he reached what is known as a “discipline by consent” agreement with the disciplinary counsel.

The panel approved the agreement and recommended it to the full 28-member board. The board considered the agreement on Oct. 11 and recommended it to the Supreme Court.

The agreement and six-month suspension aren’t official without approval by the court. Joseph M. Caligiuri, chief assistant disciplinary counsel, said yesterday that there is no timetable for the court’s decision.

“It’s in a holding pattern now,” he said. “They can accept it or reject it. They can’t modify it.”
Lawyers facing a disciplinary hearing are always encouraged to reach an agreement with the disciplinary counsel, Caligiuri said.

“A minority of the cases result in a consent to discipline,” he said.

Hale and a Cincinnati lawyer who represented him in the case did not return messages yesterday.
The Dispatch reported in April 2012 that Hale had dismissed a speeding ticket in December 2011 for lawyer Patrick M. Quinn, who was representing him in lawsuits related to sexual-harassment complaints.

Hale dismissed the ticket “without any involvement from the prosecutor or Quinn” and signed a judgment that “falsely stated: Prosecutor dismisses,” according to the agreement.

Four months later, he engaged in improper communication regarding the case by separately contacting Quinn and Chief City Prosecutor Lara Baker-Morrish. He asked each to sign an entry indicating that the ticket was dismissed “with the consent of the Columbus city attorney’s office and the defendant.” Baker-Morrish refused.

Hale eventually vacated the dismissal and removed himself from the case. Quinn pleaded guilty and paid a $55 fine and $116 in court costs on the day that Hale withdrew.

Quinn represented Hale in three lawsuits that stemmed from complaints of inappropriate behavior against the judge by a court employee and a defendant in a drunken-driving case. All three cases eventually were settled out of court.

He is the first Franklin County judge to be named in a complaint by the disciplinary counsel since 2005, when then-Domestic Relations Judge Carole Squire was accused of abusing the rights of those who came before her and not following the law. She was defeated for re-election one year later, and the Supreme Court suspended her law license for one year in October 2007.

Full Article and Source:
Ex-judge Hale agrees to six-month law license suspension

See Also:
Ohio Judge Accused of Misconduct for Dismissing His Own Lawyer's Speeding Ticket

Ohio: Judge Accused of Dismissing His Lawyer's Traffic Ticket Quits

Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Angela Stokes says she will defend against court complaint recommending she undergo psych exam

Cleveland Municipal Judge Angela Stokes

Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Angela Stokes said she plans to defend herself against a recent complaint filed by the Ohio Supreme Court's Office of Disciplinary Counsel that charges she abuses staff and defendants. The complaint also recommends she undergo a psychiatric exam.

"While the recent complaint filed before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Ohio Supreme Court contains allegations concerning alleged abuse, I am most troubled by the assertion that I may be suffering from a mental illness which interferes in my ability to serve as a judge," said in a statement released exclusively to the Call & Post, the state's largest black-owned newspaper. "I have never had mental health issues and will vigorously defend, in the appropriate forum, any suggestion along these lines."

Stokes also complains about the Plain Dealer's Monday editorial calling on her to step down.

"While the recent editorial of The Cleveland Plain Dealer cites Disciplinary Counsel's Complaint against me as if it is fact; nothing could be farther from the truth," she said. "I am in the process of formulating my defense with the assistance of counsel, and will indeed provide evidence which places the allegations in context."

The 49-page complaint states that Stokes abuses court resources, abuses lawyers and court staff and defendants who appear before her. The Call & Post did not write a story examining the complaint.
The Plain Dealer has previously documented the same complaints about Stokes and written columns about her, including one that noted the Disciplinary Counsel was tracking her.

Full Article and Source:
Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Angela Stokes says she will defend against court complaint recommending she undergo psych exam

State Bar: Bill Belk violated conduct rules

RALEIGH The N.C. State Bar concluded Friday that former Mecklenburg District Judge Bill Belk violated rules of professional conduct while on the bench.

Belk was accused of lying during a 2009 investigation into possible misconduct. He appeared Friday before a hearing panel of the bar’s Disciplinary Hearing Commission.

Belk, the grandson of the Belk department store chain founder, said he was “disappointed” with the hearing panel’s decision.

Another hearing will be held on Sept. 26 to decide the appropriate discipline. The possible disciplinary actions include admonition, reprimand, censure, suspension and disbarment.

Belk, facing misconduct charges, resigned from the bench in November 2009. Five months later, the N.C. Supreme Court banned him from ever returning to the bench.

The case revolved around Belk remaining on the board of Sonic Automotive, one of the nation’s largest auto retailers, while serving as judge. Judges are prohibited from serving on business boards of directors to avoid conflicts of interest.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/08/23/4257851/state-bar-bill-belk-violated-conduct.html#storylink=cpy

Full Article and Source:
State Bar: Bill Belk violated conduct rules

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/08/23/4257851/state-bar-bill-belk-violated-conduct.html#storylink=cpy

Discipline Hearing Against Judge to Proceed

LAS VEGAS -- District Judge Kathleen Delaney denied Tuesday an effort by Judge Steven Jones to stop a disciplinary hearing against him, the I-Team has learned.

Jones was attempting to prevent a hearing by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline regarding an alleged conflict of interest. Jones heard cases involving a prosecutor with whom he was maintaining a relationship in 2011. Jones denies allegations of misconduct.

Full Article and Source:
Discipline Hearing Against Judge to Proceed

Judge Jones tries to stop discipline hearing over alleged mishandled relationship

Longtime Family Court Judge Steven Jones,
third from left, declines to talk to the
 news media outside the
 Lloyd George Federal Courthouse
 in Las Vegas after pleading not guilty
 to a slew of felony charges in this Nov. 1, 2012,
file photo.

Embattled Family Court Judge Steven Jones is mounting an 11th-hour campaign to put off a hearing next week before the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline on allegations he mishandled a romantic relationship with a prosecutor who appeared before him.

The judge’s lawyer, Jim Jimmerson, has filed papers asking the Nevada Supreme Court to halt the proceeding, which is set to begin Monday.

Jimmerson also has filed suit against the judicial commission in District Court and is seeking a temporary restraining order to stop the panel from disciplining Jones. A hearing on the restraining order was set for 11 a.m. today before District Judge Michael Villani.

In a mass of court papers, Jimmerson contends the seven-member commission has blatantly violated Jones’ constitutional due process rights.

“Not only is the petitioner (Jones) worried about his own fate before a commission that, left unchecked, has so quickly and repeatedly abandoned the principles of due process, but he also is very fearful that without meaningful intervention from the court, no judge in the state of Nevada can be secure from the wrongful actions of the commission,” Jimmerson told the Supreme Court.

The commission has a “storied history” of violating the rights of judges it has investigated, Jimmerson added in his District Court papers.

In Jones’ case, Jimmerson said, the commission has “sullied itself” and “brought shame on the very institution the public relies upon to protect them from dangerous judges.”

Lawyers for the commission responded that the judge’s due process rights have been protected during the commission’s investigation and that his last-minute bid to derail the disciplinary proceeding is a ploy to avoid possible sanctions for his alleged misconduct.

Special Counsel Kathleen Paustian said a District Court order at this time blocking the hearing would “usurp the role of the commission” and “irreparably” damage public policy.

“The judge fails to address the fact there is also at stake the reputation of the judiciary and the public confidence in the judiciary as an institution,” Paustian wrote.

Jones, 54, who also is under federal indictment, is accused of violating Nevada’s Judicial Code of Conduct and faces possible sanctions ranging from a private reprimand to removal from office. He has been the subject of a more extensive commission investigation into other allegations of misconduct dating to 2006, but has not been charged.

The commission suspended the longtime judge in November after the federal indictment charged him with participating in a $3 million investment fraud scheme. Jones, who is to stand trial in the criminal case on March 3, has continued to receive his $200,000 annual salary.

The judicial discipline hearing, which could last most of next week, is being held at the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority on Paradise Road.

Jones, first elected to Family Court in 1992, has denied the latest allegations of wrongdoing, which were brought to light in a 2011 Las Vegas Review-Journal story.

According to a complaint filed by commission lawyers in December, former Deputy District Attorney Lisa Willardson “actively litigated cases” in the judge’s courtroom while she maintained a relationship with him in 2011. Jones failed to disqualify himself from those cases.

The State Bar of Nevada, which regulates lawyers, declined to formally discipline Willardson over the relationship.

The bar, however, sent Willardson a “letter of caution” that will remain in her professional file for three years.

“While the panel found no clear and convincing evidence that your developing romantic relationship with Judge Jones changed the result of any case, and found it hard to clearly define when your relationship with Judge Jones began,” the letter stated, “the public was left to speculate on what effect the relationship might have had in any matter, and public trust in the justice system was undermined.”

The letter of caution, made public this week by the Judicial Discipline Commission in its court papers, reminded Willardson that she did appear before Jones in an uncontested matter several days after she acknowledged in emails that she was dating him.

“We hope that the foregoing serves as a reminder of your ethical obligations and that no similar problems will arise in the future,” the letter concluded.

Willardson last month filed a federal lawsuit against the district attorney’s office seeking to clear her name and denying she and Jones saw each other socially while she appeared before him.

Former District Attorney David Roger asked the commission to investigate the relationship between Jones and Willardson, a deputy in the child welfare unit.

Roger, who has been subpoenaed to testify before the commission next week, removed Willardson from child abuse and neglect cases before Jones after the relationship became public in October 2011. Later, he fired Willardson.

Full Article and Source:
Judge Jones tries to stop discipline hearing over alleged mishandled relationship

Nevada conduct hearing delayed for Las Vegas judge

 

A disciplinary hearing is being postponed until at least mid-September for a Nevada judge accused of breaching ethics by presiding over cases involving a prosecutor with whom he had a romantic relationship.

 

Clark County Family Court Judge Steven Jones' hearing before the state Commission on Judicial Discipline had been scheduled Monday in Las Vegas.

The Nevada Supreme Court on Friday ordered a delay to hear accusations by Jones' attorney that the commission failed to follow investigatory rules.

Acting commission general counsel and executive director Brian Hutchins told the Las Vegas Sun  that it'll be at least 45 days before another hearing can be scheduled.

Full Article and Source:
Nevada conduct hearing delayed for Las Vegas judge