Former judge is disbarred for sexually harassing police officer, court reporter and prosecutor

By Debra Cassens Weiss

A former judge in Chicago has been disbarred after he was accused of trying to kiss a police officer, asking a court reporter about the cost of sex, and making demeaning remarks about a prosecutor.

The former Cook County, Illinois, judge, Judge Mauricio Boris Andres Araujo, was disbarred by the Illinois Supreme Court in a Jan. 17 order.

Araujo did not participate in ethics proceedings initiated by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. The allegations were deemed to be admitted.

A Sept. 30, 2022, report by the IARDC hearing board said these allegations were deemed admitted:

• Araujo tried to kiss a Chicago police officer on the lips in 2016 when she tried to obtain a signature on a warrant. He also grabbed her hand and said, “Touch my butt.” He also “made lewd comments” to the officer on another occasion.

• On two occasions in 2011, Araujo “approached a female court reporter in a suggestive manner when they were alone in a courthouse elevator and asked how much money it would take for the court reporter to have sex with him.”

• In 2018, Araujo made demeaning remarks about a prosecutor after she appeared before him in a first-degree murder case. He was unhappy that the prosecutor, a former law school classmate, had not congratulated him on his promotion to a new courtroom and had not said hello to him. He called a different prosecutor into his chambers and began to discuss the perceived slight. Araujo used the B-word when referring to the prosecutor and said, “Maybe it’s because I didn’t have sex with her. Or maybe it’s because I did have sex with her.”

The hearing board said Araujo’s interactions with the police officer and court reporter constituted battery and assault, and his inappropriate sexual remarks constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Araujo had no prior discipline, a mitigating factor. But the hearing panel cited several aggravating factors, including that Araujo abused his position of authority, demonstrated a pattern of misconduct, acted with selfish motives, showed no remorse, and failed to participate in the ethics proceeding.

Araujo had been transferred to administrative duties in September 2018 after a complaint by the Cook County state’s attorney’s office. The Illinois Courts Commission had also charged Araujo with ethics violations and concluded that he committed misconduct. He retired from the bench in 2020, a month before the Illinois Courts Commission entered written findings.

Araujo told the Chicago Tribune in 2018 that he didn’t think that he used the B-word to describe the prosecutor and didn’t think that he made the remark that implied they may have had sex. He also said the prosecutor’s failure to acknowledge him did not upset him.

The IARDC has no contact information for Araujo on its website. He did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal request for comment sent to an email address listed in an IARDC document.

Full Article & Source:
Former judge is disbarred for sexually harassing police officer, court reporter and prosecutor

Attorney Disbarred For Ethics Violations, Lying To Washington State Bar

EVERETT, Wash. (AP) – A personal injury lawyer who practiced in Everett has been disbarred for violating a restraining order, lying to the state bar association and other ethical violations.

The Daily Herald reports Eric Hoort was disbarred last week after working as an attorney in Washington state for over 20 years.

In 2018 and 2019, Island County sheriff’s deputies responded to calls about fights between Hoort and the woman at their home on Camano Island.

Police incident reports show the woman reported Hoort had been using drugs and stealing her prescription medications.

The state bar association says Hoort also violated a temporary protection by emailing the woman repeatedly.

The newspaper tried unsuccessfully to reach Hoort for comment.

Full Article & Source:

Attorney Disbarred For Ethics Violations, Lying To Washington State Bar

Alabama judge charged with theft, ethics violation resigns

ATHENS, Ala. - A north Alabama judge accused of misusing court funds and stealing money from clients has resigned from his post.

Former Limestone County District Judge Doug Patterson announced he would be stepping down effective July 3, according to a letter to the Alabama Supreme Court filed Tuesday.

“The unescapable reality is that I cannot financially, mentally, or emotionally continue to fight the full weight, power and resources of the State of Alabama in two different theaters,” Patterson wrote in the letter, saying the move should not be viewed as an admission of guilt.

The former judge was suspended after being indicted on felony charges of use of official position for personal gain, financial exploitation of the elderly and theft of property in December 2019. He has pleaded not guilty to the counts, news outlets reported.

The Alabama attorney general’s office accused Patterson of using $47,000 intended for juvenile court programs on personal expenses. The former judge also was accused of improperly withdrawing about $47,800 from the account of a nursing home resident for whom he had served as a conservator, as well as between $499 and $1,500 from the estate of another client.

The case was scheduled for trial in June but was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic, news outlets reported. Jury trials in Alabama remained paused until September. Patterson was set to face a separate trial at the Alabama Court of the Judiciary on the ethics charge this week, but that trial was also postponed.

Full Article & Source:
Alabama judge charged with theft, ethics violation resigns

Attorney for judge facing misconduct fires back at California commission

MARTINEZ — The attorney for a Contra Costa judge who’s facing misconduct charges for the sixth time fired back against the state Commission on Judicial Performance with accusations of his own.

According to attorney Jim Murphy, who is defending Superior Court Judge Bruce C. Mills against two counts of misconduct, the CJP — the California body that investigates and disciplines judges — should have recused itself when it received a complaint against Mills from San Ramon resident Joseph Sweeney, who is an outspoken critic of the commission.

“Sweeney has attacked and challenged the commission on several fronts… I think if any judge was put into CJP’s position, that judge is disqualified,” Murphy said. “That judge can’t investigate this complaint, make a determination, or order formal proceedings, which this commission has done.”
A CJP spokeswoman declined to comment on Murphy’s remarks.

Mills is facing two counts of misconduct. The first alleges that he had an improper courtroom conversation with a prosecutor about the DUI case they were handling, and the second alleges that he attempted to illegally double Sweeney’s sentence for contempt of court in a civil case.

Sweeney, the founder of an advocacy group called Court Reform LLC, became interested in legal reform while representing himself in a messy divorce case and growing disenchanted with the legal system. He issued a report criticizing the CJP for failing to adequately investigate judicial misconduct, prompting the commission to issue a response.

Last year, Mills sentenced Sweeney to 25 days in jail — the maximum for five counts of contempt — after finding Sweeney had violated another judge’s order not to disclose the contents of his wife’s cell phone. Sweeney published a blog that was sourced from public court records filed by his ex-wife, but contained a lot of the same information he’d originally gleaned from her phone.

While Sweeney was serving his sentence, Mills directed his clerk to modify the order, revoking the good behavior credits, and fax a copy of it to the jail. But he failed to notify either party in the case, according to the CJP. The CJP says he violated seven cannons from the Judicial Code of Ethics in his handling of the Sweeney case.

In California, nonviolent offenders who are sentenced to more than four days in jail are granted one day off their sentence for every day they go without discipline, effectively cutting most sentences in half. Murphy said Mills was confused about whether that applied to civil contempt sentences, which Murphy called “quasi-criminal” in nature.

In the August 2016 hearing, Mills said twice on the record that Sweeney was entitled to good time credits.

“Well, keep in mind, he’s also going to get good time credits,” Mills said, according to the transcript. He added, “So out of 25, he’ll serve 12 or 13?”

According to the transcript a bailiff responded, “Yes,” and Mills said, “So the reality is he’ll only serve half of it to begin with.”

After the hearing, though, Mills’ clerk inquired whether good time credits actually applied. The judge researched it and determined that they did not, Murphy said.

After the order was modified, Sweeney’s lawyer got involved. He faxed Mills and the sheriff a copy of the original order — which didn’t have the  added note revoking good time credits — Mills reinstated the good time credits. Murphy said the judge did that to “Avoid the fight and further appeals and riffs in dealing with someone who has proved himself to be litigious,” referencing Sweeney.

“You’re talking about 13 versus 25 days,” Murphy said. “I think it was, ‘Let’s just give him the time served.'”

Mills has been disciplined five times by the CJP, most recently in 2013, when he was admonished for interfering with a case in which his son was a defendant.

Full Article & Source:
Attorney for judge facing misconduct fires back at California commission

Controversial East Bay judge charged with illegally doubling sentence

Judge Bruce C. Mills was charged with willful misconduct

MARTINEZ — A Contra Costa judge with a history of ethics violations was charged with judicial misconduct that could warrant his removal from the bench, records obtained Tuesday show.

The two counts of misconduct include allegations that Judge Bruce C. Mills illegally doubled the sentence of a judicial rights advocate who Mills had found to be in contempt of court. Mills jailed the man for discussing his divorce online, a decision that First Amendment experts called, “outrageous” and a free speech violation.

The two charges were filed Friday by the Commission on Judicial Performance, the California government body that investigates ethical complaints into judges. Mills is required to provide a written answer to the charges within 20 days.

Per the California Constitution, Mills faces removal or admonishment if the charges are found true. The CJP’s action carries no criminal penalties. Mills could not be reached for comment.

Mills, a judge since 1995, has been disciplined five times since 2001. He was admonished in 2013 after the commision found 10-0 that he had “created an appearance of impropriety that undermined public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary” when he interfered with a case in which his son was a defendant. In 2001, he was found to have coerced a guilty plea out of a DUI defendant.

Last year, Mills sentenced San Ramon resident Joseph Sweeney to 25 days in jail for contempt, after finding that Sweeney’s online writings violated another judge’s restraining order not to disclose the contents of his ex-wife’s cellphone or computer. But Sweeney argued that his writings were sourced from publicly-available court documents filed by his ex-wife.

In the hearing, Mills claimed that “matters that are put into court pleadings and brought up in oral argument before the court do not become public thereby,” a statement several First Amendment experts say wildly misstates the nature of court records.

According to the hearing transcript, Mills also made it clear that Sweeney’s 25-day sentence — the maximum for five counts of contempt of court — qualified for 50 percent good time credits, meaning Sweeney would likely only serve half his sentence. Under state law, people convicted of nonviolent crimes are set free after serving half their sentences, assuming they have no disciplinary problems.

But days later, after Sweeney was in the West Contra Costa Jail, Mills allegedly directed a court clerk to modify the sentence and revoke Sweeney’s good time credits. The CJP alleges Mills did so without notifying the parties in the case or giving them time to respond, a violation of ethics guidelines.

When Sweeney found out his good time credits had been revoked, he contacted his attorney, Jim Morrison, from jail. In a 2016 interview, Morrison said he faxed the copy of the original order — which said Sweeney would serve 50 percent time — to the sheriff and to Mills. Sweeney’s good time credits were reinstated later that day, Morrison said.

Ironically, Sweeney is a well-known judicial reform advocate who has publicly criticized the commission’s handling of judicial misconduct cases. He testified in front of the state legislature last year, calling for a state audit of the CJP. Mills jailed Sweeney two days after the legislature approved the audit.

“Finally, (the CJP) feels pressured to be doing something about judicial misconduct, which is a good indication,” Sweeney said in an interview Tuesday when asked for a response to the action against Mills.

After his release from jail, Sweeney filed multiple complaints against Mills and appealed the judge’s decision. Last November he received a response from then-presiding Judge Steve Austin, who said that altering the order was improper, but suggested that Mills simply didn’t know he’d violated a rule.

“I view this as a training issue and not as something more serious as you have described it in your letter,” Austin wrote. “I have taken appropriate corrective action.”

Similarly, the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office reviewed the matter and determined Mills hadn’t committed a crime, chief deputy Doug MacMaster wrote in a letter to Sweeney last year.

The second misconduct charge alleges Mills had a courtroom conversation with the prosecutor in a DUI case Mills was presiding over, where the two discussed the case. During the conversation, Mills compared the case to one he handled as a prosecutor and suggested that someone may have to look into whether breathalyzer systems were faulty.

“You did not disclose on the record your conversation with (the prosecutor) or recuse yourself from further proceedings in the case until April 1, 2016, after the district attorney’s office disclosed the ex parte conversation to a supervising judge and to defense counsel,” CJP Chairperson Hon. Ignazio Ruvolo wrote in the charging records.

Full Article & Source:
Controversial East Bay judge charged with illegally doubling sentence

Judicial Discipline Among Highlights of Harrisburg Arguments

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is set to convene in Harrisburg on Tuesday and Wednesday to hear argument on a variety of issues, including right to counsel during psychological exams, the role of stare decisis in judicial discipline cases and the statute of limitations in underinsured motorist cases.

Right to Counsel

One of the first cases the court will hear is an appeal from a March 2016 Superior Court ruling that a litigant does not have an absolute right to the presence of counsel during an independent psychological evaluation.

In a March 9 opinion in Shearer v. Hafer, a unanimous three-judge panel of the court held in an apparent issue of first impression that Pennsylvania's Rules of Civil Procedure allow a trial court to issue protective orders expressly prohibiting the presence of third-party observers during the standardized portion of an evaluation. The psychologist conducting the evaluation at issue had said counsel's presence could threaten the validity of data gathered during the test.

The decision affirmed a ruling of the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas, which granted Scott Hafer and Paulette Ford's motion for a protective order in a case involving a car accident.

Judicial Discipline

The court will also hear argument in the disciplinary cases of two suspended Philadelphia judges who were removed from office for ethics violations.

The question before the justices is whether, when imposing sanctions on a judge, the Court of Judicial Discipline is bound to follow the doctrine of stare decisis, requiring it to follow its prior decisions.
In separate sanctions rulings issued Dec. 16, the CJD removed both judges from the bench and barred them from holding public office in the future.

Both judges have already appealed the sanctions rulings to the state Supreme Court.

The decisions came after Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Angeles Roca and Philadelphia Municipal Court Judge Dawn Segal were found earlier this year to have violated the state constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct by engaging in ex parte contact with former Municipal Court Judge Joseph C. Waters Jr., who was later charged criminally and sentenced to 24 months in prison for fixing cases of political donors.

UM Arbitration Preservation

Is an unopposed demand for arbitration enough to toll the statute of limitations for bringing an uninsured motorist claim that is subject to mandatory arbitration, or does an arbitration petition need to be filed with a court?

That is the question the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is set to consider. Both sides said they are looking forward to a clear rule from the Supreme Court on the issue.

In late December 2016, the justices took up an appeal in Erie Insurance Exchange v. Bristol. The court specifically agreed to hear arguments about whether the statute of limitations in uninsured motorist claims subject to mandatory arbitration is "tolled only by the commencement of an official judicial action, or may extrajudicial actions also toll the statute of limitations."

A three-judge panel of the state Superior Court in May 2016 ruled that the statute of limitations on an uninsured motorist claim had not been tolled despite the parties corresponding about the mandatory arbitration and even selecting arbitrators. The decision upheld a ruling from the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which had granted summary judgment for the insurance carrier.

Full Article & Source:
Judicial Discipline Among Highlights of Harrisburg Arguments

2 Philly judges removed from bench for ethics violations

Two more Philadelphia judges have been kicked off the bench, the latest development in an FBI probe of judicial corruption here.

The Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline ruled on Friday that Municipal Court Judge Dawn Segal and Common Pleas Court Judge Angeles Roca be removed from office for their involvement in separate case-fixing schemes.

Lawyers for both judges say they are appealing the decisions to the state Supreme Court.

In October, the disciplinary court found that Roca had unethically intervened in a tax case involving her son by calling then-Municipal Court Judge Joseph Waters Jr., who reached out to Segal, who then reversed herself and issued a ruling favorable to Roca's son.

Waters was sentenced in January 2015 to two years in prison for fixing cases on behalf of campaign donors and political allies. He was released about a month ago.

In July, the court found Segal guilty of seven violations of judicial ethics rules, including bringing the court into disrepute.

"I got something in front of you at 1 o'clock today," Waters told Segal in an intercepted 2011 phone conversation in which he asked for favorable treatment of a politically connected defendant appearing before her.

"Oh, OK. OK," Segal responded, according to the disciplinary panel.

Wiretaps also captured Segal telling Waters she had helped him with her rulings.

In Segal's case, the court acknowledged that Segal had been approached by Waters, "a corrupt judge."

 And, the court said, Roca at first had only sought advice from Waters before the conversation extended to intervening in her son's case. But neither judge stood up to Waters, the court said.

"As we have said in more detail in prior decisions, when it comes to corrupt acts and the derogation of a fair and just judicial process, a judge must have 'the willingness to stand up for what was right and buck a corrupt tide,'" the court wrote in both rulings.

Roca and Segal, both Democrats, had been on unpaid suspension. If the rulings stand, they would be ineligible to hold judicial office in the future.

"I'm very disturbed by the decision," Roca's attorney, Samuel Stretton, said Tuesday.

Stretton said he was appealing the ruling because the disciplinary court ignored case law and treated Roca's and Segal's cases too similarly.

Segal's lawyer, Stuart Haimowitz, said he also is appealing.

"Judge Segal expected to be sanctioned for what she did. We hoped and expected the Court of Judicial Discipline to have considered Judge Segal's actual conduct and its own precedent when it imposed its sanction," Haimowitz said in a statement Tuesday. "Instead, it appears it took a 'get rid of them all' approach. In so doing, the citizens of Philadelphia County lost a good judge."

Stretton and Haimowitz had sought suspensions for the judges.

In addition to Waters, who pleaded guilty to mail and wire fraud, Municipal Court Judge Joseph O'Neill pleaded guilty in May to federal charges connected to the judicial case-fixing scandal.

O'Neill admitted he lied to FBI agents who were investigating special treatment he gave to a Democratic fund-raiser in 2011, at Waters' request.

"He's a friend of mine, so if you can, take a hard look at it," Waters told O'Neill in a conversation caught on an FBI wiretap.

"No problem," O'Neill replied.

Full Article & Source:
2 Philly judges removed from bench for ethics violations

Pennsylvania's top prosecutor says justice violated ethics

HARRISBURG, Pa. —A day after being charged with a second perjury count, Pennsylvania's attorney general said Friday she had reported a state Supreme Court justice for possible ethics violations, citing pornographic, racially offensive or otherwise inappropriate emails he received that were recovered from her office's computer servers.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane released one of several letters she sent Wednesday about Justice Michael Eakin to various state ethics agencies in the latest stage of a year-old pornographic email scandal that has spurred a wave of resignations or firings of state officials.

In the letter, Kane wrote that the emails may run afoul of rules that judges must act in a way that promotes public confidence in the judiciary and can't take part in activities that would appear to undermine his independence, integrity and impartiality.

A state courts spokesman said Friday that it had hired a Pittsburgh law firm to look into the matter. Eakin said in a statement issued through the courts that he would cooperate with a judicial ethics investigation, but otherwise declined comment.

The emails allegedly involving Eakin were among a batch the attorney general's office said it submitted to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court last fall as the pornographic email scandal began unfolding.

However, a lawyer retained by the court to review the thousands of emails between justices and the state attorney general's office from 2008 through 2012 reported finding no new improprieties at the time.

Kane's release of the letter came one day after she was charged for a second time in an ongoing criminal case against her. Montgomery County prosecutors have charged her with perjury, obstruction and other counts and accused her of leaking secret grand jury material from a 2009 investigation to a newspaper last year and then lying about it.
  
As she was leaving the courthouse Thursday, Kane made the bombshell allegation that pornographic emails in the scandal involve judges, U.S. attorneys, attorneys general, district attorneys and public defenders. She did not name any other names or release the emails, as she promised to do last week.

Kane, the first woman and first Democrat elected as the state's top prosecutor, has tied the pornographic email scandal she uncovered to the criminal case against her. She has portrayed herself as the victim of an old boy's club determined to stop her from disclosing details about the scandal that involved figures in the state's legal and law enforcement communities.
  
Eakin, a Republican who joined the court in 2002, is one of the five state Supreme Court justices who voted last week to temporarily suspend Kane's law license, based on allegations in her criminal case.
  
The emails are allegedly linked to Eakin through a Yahoo email address he opened under the name "John Smith." Kane's spokesman said Friday that the attorney general's office submitted more than 1,000 emails involving Eakin's private email address along with complaint letters to the Court of Judicial Discipline, the State Ethics Commission, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court and the state Supreme Court.
  
Some of the emails were routine, Kane's spokesman said. However, Kane on Thursday described some as racially offensive and misogynistic pornography.
  
On Friday, the Philadelphia Daily News reported it had obtained copies of some of the emails and described them as pornographic, or as mocking gays, women, blacks or Mexicans. Several were exchanged between Eakin and a top state prosecutor, it reported.

The newspaper did not say how it had obtained the emails.

The letter Kane sent to the Court of Judicial Discipline's president judge said her office reviewed the emails after it fielded a Sept. 11 inquiry from the Daily News about emails from the Yahoo account.

Kane's letter said lawyers are required to inform appropriate authorities if a judge's action raises questions about his or her fitness for office.

This is the second time Eakin's name has come up in the scandal. Last fall, Eakin notified judicial ethics investigators after the Daily News reported that he had received two pornographic emails and one racially offensive email at the Yahoo address in 2010.

Eakin was never publicly punished.

Previous disclosures by Kane in the scandal have resulted in resignations or firings of former state prosecutors and investigators.
  
A colleague of Eakin's on the Supreme Court, Justice Seamus McCaffery, retired abruptly last October after a newspaper revealed his role in the email exchanges with state prosecutors and agents. (Continue Reading)

Full Article & Source:
Pennsylvania's top prosecutor says justice violated ethics

See Also:
Attorney General Kathleen Kane disciplines 61 in pornographic email case

Kane's office begins punishing workers in porn email scandal: report

Pennsylvania Supreme Court suspends Justice Seamus McCaffery

Judicial board to review McCaffery e-mails complaint

Porn Email Claims Could Trigger Discipline For Pa. Justice