Embattled Contra Costa County judge retires in face of misconduct case, but asks commission to clear his name

SAN FRANCISCO — A Contra Costa County judge facing discipline for the sixth time told a commission of judges he had retired in June and asked them to clear his name.

Judge Bruce C. Mills still took issue with a March ruling by the panel of special masters — three judicial officials who oversee complaints against judges — that found he committed misconduct three times and accused him of raising a dishonest defense.

During July 11 opening arguments in the disciplinary phase of his misconduct case, Mills asked the state Commission on Judicial Performance to reverse the decision against him. He insisted his retirement was not motivated by pending disciplinary proceedings.

“I’m not going to practice law. I’m not going to sit as a judge,” Mills said. He later added: “I didn’t retire because of this. I retired because after 23 years, I wanted to do something else.”

In March, Mills was found to have committed three counts of misconduct related to a contempt of court hearing where he jailed a man for discussing his divorce online. Mills was found to have effectively tried to improperly double the man’s jail sentence. In another drunken driving case, Mills was found to have had an inappropriate conversation with a prosecutor.

Possible disciplines include public and private admonishments. During his opening statement, the commission’s attorney, Mark Lizarraga, implied that Mills was unfit to be a judge.

“Judge Mills’ extensive prior disciplinary record demonstrates that he’s incapable of conforming to the conduct of ethical norms, conforming his conduct to the CJP,” Lizarraga said.

But instead of discipline, Mills said he deserved vindication.

“The special masters got this wrong,” Mills said. “You have a clear record and a clear transcript that backs up everything I’m telling you, and I’m asking you to reverse the decision of the special masters and square this away.”

Later, he added that Lizarraga had “got what he wanted, which was me off the bench.”

In 2016, Mills jailed a San Ramon resident, Joseph Sweeney, for discussing his pending divorce case in a blog post, ruling Sweeney had violated a previous judge’s order not to disclose details about the case. Sweeney argued that the details had been made public in court records.

In 2016, an appeals court upheld Mills’ ruling. But it was Sweeney’s 25-day jail sentence that ended up landing the judge in hot water. During Sweeney’s hearing, Mills said Sweeney would “also get good time credits,” and therefore end up serving “12 or 13” days. In California, nonviolent offenders can have their sentences reduced by up to 50 percent for good behavior.

Mills also said Sweeney would “only serve half of it to begin with.” But at the July 11 hearing, Mills insisted there was nothing to suggest he believed Sweeney would get good time credits. He said he later determined that Sweeney should not get them, and had his clerk modify the order accordingly.

Then, after Sweeney’s lawyer complained, Mills conferred with another judge and reinstated Sweeney’s good time credits, he said.

Lizarraga wasn’t buying the story, and cited the special masters’ decision that said Mills offered multiple, contradictory explanations for his actions.

“(Mills) clearly has had changing stories here, no matter how he wants to spin it,” Lizarraga said.

During his remarks, Mills also took aim at Sweeney, referencing a 2016 article by this newspaper about the case.

“Of course, Mr. Sweeney didn’t go back to the newspaper and tell them that the Court of Appeal ruled against him,” Mills said. “So while all of my neighbors and friends got to read in the newspaper how I violated Mr. Sweeney’s rights, nobody got to read the confirmation that I did not, in the one-paragraph decision issued by the Court of Appeal, that I handled this case exactly correctly.”

Mills was appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson in 1995, and served in a number of different capacities throughout his career. A former Contra Costa County judge and current defense lawyer, Dan O’Malley, called him “a workhorse.”

“He was great to everybody, his staff was spectacular,” O’Malley said. “It’s a shame his past came back to haunt him.”

Mills’ five prior disciplines since 2001 include a 2013 case, when the CJP found he had “created an appearance of impropriety that undermined public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary” by interfering 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.

The CJP may make a decision at its meeting in late August.

Full Article & Source:  
Embattled Contra Costa County judge retires in face of misconduct case, but asks commission to clear his name

Eddy County judge facing discipline hearing retires

Eddy County Magistrate Judge Henry Castaneda

ALBUQUERQUE, NM — Eddy County Magistrate Judge Henry Castañeda is retiring from the bench several weeks before he was to face a disciplinary hearing at the state Supreme Court.

The complaining petition filed by the Judicial Standards Commission against Castañeda details more than 100 emails, including dozens of raunchy, racist and sexist cartoons and jokes, along with personal emails and political emails sent to friends from his official judge email address.

The complaint against him says that despite one-on-one training sessions and access to IT experts, Castañeda claimed he just didn’t know how to delete or block emails and would just forward them to his personal email.

Castañeda, who has been a judge since 2003, submitted his letter of resignation in early January, and it was submitted to his official disciplinary file Tuesday with an effective date of Feb. 4.

Full Article & Source:
Eddy County judge facing discipline hearing retires

El Paso County judge chooses to retire over disciplinary hearing

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (KKTV) - El Paso County Judge Jonathan Walker has chosen to retire instead of face disciplinary proceeding for alleged misconduct according to the Colorado Judicial Department.

Because Judge Walker has agreed to retire from the bench effective Feb. 15, the Commission requested the dismissal of the proceedings pending against him. On Feb. 9, the Colorado Supreme Court approved the recommendation of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline for the termination of disciplinary proceedings involving Judge Walker.

Judge Walker was suspended on Nov. 8, a reason for his suspension wasn't given. A statement of charges was filed on Nov. 23. The statement of charges and answers contained multiple claims and defenses.

The first claim was that Judge Walker engaged in undignified and disrespectful conduct, including harassment, toward three female Judicial employees. Judge Walker denied the allegations.

Another claim stated Judge Walker retaliated against another Judicial staff member once he learned that the staff member had been interviewed as part of an investigation into his conduct in violation.

Judge Walker again denied the allegations and stated he and the staff member didn't get along and the staff member was a poor performer.

The third claim, Judge Walker improperly modified plea agreements in a number of cases without informing the parties, violating his duty to promote confidence in the judiciary and avoid the appearance of impropriety and unfairness. Judge Walker admitted that he modified plea agreements but stated that his modification was lawful.

The final claim, Judge Walker failed to disqualify himself from cases where his personal attorney was representing a litigant. Judge Walker asserted that he acted in conformance with his duty to disqualify himself.

Walker is a nine-year veteran of the El Paso County courts.

Full Article & Source:
El Paso County judge chooses to retire over disciplinary hearing

See Also:
El Paso County judge suspended pending disciplinary hearing

Controversial Judge Retires

Judge Pat Ferchill retires

Tarrant County Judge Pat Ferchill announced his retirement effective Aug. 31 after sitting on the bench for 35 years in Probate Court No. 2. Ferchill was two years into a four-year term that expires in 2018. He will continue to sit on the bench as a visiting judge until county commissioners appoint his successor.

Some people might shed a tear for Ferchill’s departure, we suppose. Probate courts resolve some sticky family dramas at times.

“The county is going to miss him more than they’ll know after he’s actually gone,” Associate Judge Lin Morrisett told us on the phone this week.

You know who won’t miss him? The families who have described how a guardianship system overseen by Ferchill and fellow probate Judge Steven King have ripped apart families unnecessarily in the name of greed and power. The first case we examined in the Fort Worth Weekly involved Kathie Seidel, a mother who adopted a child from Russia but later lost custody after a guardianship hearing was held by Ferchill without Seidel being present (“Saving Katia,” July 2, 2008). After that article appeared, dozens of families called the Weekly to describe similar horror stories of a powerful court system under the influence of money-hungry attorneys and healthcare facility operators more interested in lining their pockets than doing what is best for families. Associate Editor Jeff Prince has written numerous stories about the probate system and has compiled a long list of local families who describe being victimized by the probate courts.

Frank and Chila Covington were one of those families. Ferchill removed them as guardians of their Down Syndrome daughter, Ceci, without bothering to let them know that their parental rights were being questioned. Yep, the court has that power and wielded it like a baseball bat against them in 2009. The Covingtons’ crime? They did not want their daughter to be administered psychoactive drugs that they say put her in a stupor. They preferred a more natural approach to treating her mental problems.

The Covingtons say Ferchill’s decision to remove them as guardians was a way to pad the pockets of attorneys and caregivers who profit from working with Guardianship Services, Inc., the program that Ferchill and his attorney buddies helped establish in 1998 allegedly to provide help for people in need.

Ferchill just wanted to send people to Guardianship Services, Chila said.

“We were just somebody else he could manipulate,” she said. “It is just greed.”

The Covingtons spent about $400,000 in a years-long fight to regain custody of their daughter.

Kathie Seidel (with son, Greg)

Ferchill “devastated our lives with lies,” Chila said. “They decided to control my daughter’s destiny by saying she was psychotic.”

Another local woman, Dorothy Luck, was put under guardianship after the probate court decided she wasn’t mentally sound enough to manage her financial affairs correctly. Luck is elderly but quite sharp when it comes to her personal and financial affairs. But all it took was one complaint from a relative (who had a vested interest financially) and Luck found herself having to defend her abilities to take care of herself (“Grabbing the Purse,” Sept. 3, 2013). She proved herself capable time and again, but she couldn’t stand up against a court system so powerful that it can remove a person’s rights at will.

Over the next year or so, court-appointed attorneys charged about $500,000 to Luck’s bank account while, a’hem, valiantly fighting to protect her money from … uh … herself.

Seidel spent a decade fighting against Ferchill and the probate court’s methods, first as a lone voice in defense of Katia and, later, as part of advocacy groups such as G.R.A.D.E., or Guardianship Reform Advocates for the Disabled and Elderly, a group formed to help protect people from overzealous probate judges. Seidel died from cancer a few weeks ago, on August 16, at her Fort Worth home. She still blamed Ferchill for putting her family through hell unnecessarily. Shortly before she died, she e-mailed Prince.

“Things are pretty dicey with physical problems,” she wrote. “Of course, it is hard to do any letting go where my children and other loved ones are concerned. It won’t be difficult to let go of the physical challenges.”

After that first quick paragraph, she dived into the topic that drove her to rail against a powerful system for the last decade of her life. Her adopted daughter was put under guardianship, removed from her home, and prevented from seeing her mother for years.

Guardian Services “is being informed this week that I am terminal in hopes that we can get more visits with Katia,” who is 30 years old now and living in a group home, “and to prepare her for my death,” Seidel wrote. “It kills me to think of what K will go through in having so little family support through the grief she will encounter … also, I want her to be able to go to grief counseling  –– but am doubtful she will get it. We worked for more than six months trying to find money and a high-profile attorney to advocate for her knowing this might be coming.”

She ended her e-mail by expressing fears that the probate court would toss one more indignity her way as she was dying.

“If there is retaliation toward me (threatening to put me under guardianship), I have written a letter,” she said. Her son, Greg, “knows the location of it, and you may be interested in it.”

Seidel’s friends say she would have appreciated knowing that Ferchill will no longer sit on the bench.

Full Article & Source:
Controversial Judge Retires