Judicial discipline report notes 6 corrective actions against judges in 2020

By MICHAEL KARLIK

 

DENVER, CO - JANUARY 13: Colorado Supreme Court Justice Brian Boatright stands at the podium in the Senate as he swears in senators at the start of the first legislative day of the 73rd General Assembly at the Colorado State Capitol on January 13, 2021 in Denver, Colorado. (Photo By Kathryn Scott)

Colorado's Commission on Judicial Discipline initiated six corrective actions against judges in 2020 — the same number as the prior year — ranging from mild concerns about the handling of cases to illegal behavior that resulted in a Supreme Court censure.

The commission released its annual report, which includes specific details about judges who received public discipline, and only general, non-identifying information about circumstances involving private sanctions. The majority of complaints about judges were for issues the commission could not resolve because they pertained to evidence, court procedures or law, and not official misconduct.

Of the two cases meriting public discipline, the first involved former Weld County District Court Judge Ryan L. Kamada, who the state Supreme Court censured in December for obstructing a federal drug investigation and improperly disclosing information about cases. In one instance, Kamada texted friends that a woman in a divorce proceeding would be "free game tomorrow night." Last month, a federal court sentenced Kamada to little over a year in prison for his interference in the drug operation.

In the other instance of public discipline, the commission reported that it commenced formal proceedings against former Baca County Court Judge Debra M. Gunkel in December. She had violated the terms of her deferred sentence for impaired driving by picking up a second DUI conviction.

The report revealed that the state Supreme Court initially rejected a proposed resolution to Gunkel's disciplinary case, without noting what the proposal entailed. But her case was not resolved until May of this year, when the justices accepted her resignation and censured Gunkel.

There were three instances of private discipline meted out to unnamed judges. The commission reprimanded one judge and placed them into a counseling program after the judge exhibited a "pattern of personal conduct with staff in the close quarters of the courthouse [that] adversely affected the work environment."

In another circumstance, a judge delayed issuing a decision for nearly three years in a complex case that involved a 19-day trial with 46 witnesses. 

"The Commission determined that the intensity and complexity of the litigation were the primary cause of the delay, but that the judge, nonetheless, should have resolved it more promptly," explained the disciplinary report.

Finally, the commission twice reprimanded a judge for their "insensitivity in using racial and ethnic terms" and problems handling administrative tasks.

The commission dismissed two cases that did not amount to provable violations, but nonetheless registered its concerns. The commission encouraged one judge to seek the help of a retired senior judge in managing their docket when, as in the case at hand, the judge only was able to issue two orders in 20 months in a parental dispute. Frequent legal motions, changes in court staff and the COVID-19 pandemic were the sources of the delays.

Another judge received encouragement to better explain the nature of their communications with a magistrate, after the father in another parental dispute complained about improper discussion between the district court judge and a magistrate who also happened to be a witness on behalf of the mother.

In total, the commission received 199 requests for evaluation of judicial conduct in 2020. The executive director ultimately dismissed 190 of those because they involved the conduct of non-judges, did not reasonably relate to judicial misconduct or had no provable violation.

"The disruption of the judicial branch’s management of hearings and trials during the COVID-19 pandemic prompted several complaints about delays and the occasional difficulties in connecting with remote hearings by video and in managing the proceedings," the report noted. "These situations were unavoidable and did not involve judicial misconduct."

In 2019, there were 221 requests for evaluation, of which the executive director dismissed 211. That year, discipline included two public actions, two instances of private discipline and two cases being dismissed while noting the concerns of the commission.

The judicial discipline process, which by and large takes place out of the public's eye, came under scrutiny earlier this year after The Gazette and The Denver Post reported that the Judicial Department awarded a multimillion-dollar contract to a former employee allegedly in exchange for her silence about instances of misconduct within the judiciary. A committee of legislators and executive branch officials is charged with selecting a firm to perform an independent investigation.

The Commission on Judicial Discipline dates to 1967 and monitors the judiciary's compliance with the canons of judicial ethics. Pursuant to the state constitution, the process remains confidential until the commission files a disciplinary recommendation to the Supreme Court at the end of formal proceedings.

"A significant number of the complaints made in the judicial discipline process are in fact somebody's effort to call attention to a case that turned out in a way they didn’t agree with. Those cases have to be winnowed out," former Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis told Colorado Politics in February. She added that a person might turn to human resources if they want a judge's problematic behavior to stop, while the judicial discipline process may be best reserved for "conduct that is reprehensible and which leads the complainant to want to see that person disciplined or taken off the bench."

In addition to dismissing the charges and doling out public or private reprimands, discipline could also include removing a judge from office, suspension without pay, or measures "necessary to curtail or eliminate the judge's misconduct."

Besides Gunkel, the only judge subject to public censure during 2021 so far is former Arapahoe County District Court Judge Natalie T. Chase, who offered her resignation in April after admitting to using the N-word in front of court employees and ordering her staff to perform her personal tasks at work, among other incidents.

Full Article & Source:

Judicial discipline report notes 6 corrective actions against judges in 2020

Judicial discipline panel recommends removal of chief judge

BALTIMORE (AP) — The Maryland panel that oversees judges’ conduct has recommended that Baltimore’s chief judge be removed from his position and not be permitted to serve as a judge in the state.

The Baltimore Sun reports the Commission on Judicial Disabilities unanimously voted that 69-year-old Chief Judge Alfred Nance committed “sanctionable conduct” and referred their recommendation to the Court of Appeals, which has the final say.

Nance was accused of having “persistently disrespectful” interactions with a public defender. The panel found that his tone of voice and body language were insensitive and inflammatory. Charges stemming from two other cases were dismissed for a “lack of proof.”

This is at least the third time the commission has publicly moved to discipline Nance.

Nance’s attorney couldn’t be reached for comment Wednesday.

Full Article & Source:
Judicial discipline panel recommends removal of chief judge

Justices Probe Use of Precedent in Judicial Discipline

Attorneys representing two Philadelphia judges removed from the bench last year may have wanted to argue about the unfairness of the disciplinary process or the sanctions their clients received, but the state Supreme Court was only interested in hearing about the role that prior precedent may play in the Court of Judicial Discipline's deliberative process.

On Tuesday the justices heard argument in the disciplinary cases against former Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Angeles Roca and former Municipal Court Judge Dawn Segal, who were removed from the bench last year.

The justices, who had specifically granted the appeals on the issue of what role stare decisis should play for the CJD, asked about what the process should be for determining sanctions, whether the disciplinary body should have to outline its reasoning and what role the Supreme Court can play in hearing appeals. Any arguments that Roca and Segal were not afforded due process or that their sentences went beyond the bounds of fairness were quickly rejected by the court.

When attorney Samuel Stretton, who represented Roca and argued first before the Supreme Court, said he did not think removal was warranted for Roca since she had only sought a rule returnable in a case involving her son, Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor put an end to that argument, saying Roca's son received a ruling that nobody else would have. Stretton is a regular contributor to Pennsylvania Law Weekly, an affiliate of The Legal.

"Her son received something a similarly situated citizen would not have," Saylor said.

During attorney Stuart Haimowitz's time arguing, Haimowitz, who is representing Segal, said his client had not been given adequate due process since the sanction varied so vastly from the conduct at issue.

However, Saylor again put an end to that argument, saying "of course she did," and that Haimowitz was making "a serious allegation."

Saylor dismissed Haimowitz from the lectern after the exchange following only a few minutes of argument, saying, in part, that Haimowitz's arguments were repeating some of the issues Stretton had previously raised.

When it came to the question regarding stare decisis, Stretton contended that the court needed to consider precedent when making its decisions on sanctions. According to Stretton, the court did not do any proportionality analysis when considering Roca's sanctions, but simply decided that corruption requires removal.

"I'm suggesting that the court had no studied review of the case law of the past 24 to 25 years of that court and the Supreme Court treating that kind of case different from removal," Stretton said. "What happened here was a sea change."

Justice Debra Todd said Stretton was asking for a "robotic" approach where the court would simply have to follow a check list, but Stretton replied that he did not believe the court needed to be so strictly bound by stare decisis, but simply that it needed to review and distinguish the case law when making a ruling.

Robert Graci, chief counsel for the Judicial Conduct Board, argued in reply that the CJD did what it needed to do in terms of reviewing the precedent, and that a finding by the justices that the court was bound by stare decisis would not change the decision to remove Roca and Segal.

Graci said he was not surprised by the decision to remove Segal and Roca given the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in In re Magisterial District Judge Bruno, which, he said, found that corruption had no place on the bench.

"I think that the times have changed," Graci said.  (Click to Continue)

Full Article & Source:
Justices Probe Use of Precedent in Judicial Discipline

Lawyer tells judicial discipline panel Judge Gary Kreep should be removed from bench for misconduct

San Diego Superior Court Judge Gary Kreep

San Diego Superior Court Judge Gary Kreep should be removed from the bench for committing numerous acts of misconduct and his “lack of candor” during a hearing on the charges in February, a lawyer for the state’s judicial discipline agency said.

Mark Lizarraga, trial counsel for the California Commission on Judicial Performance, said in legal brief filed Monday that Kreep should also lose his seat because he has not acknowledged he violated judicial ethics rules on many of the 29 acts of misconduct that a three-judge panel said he committed.

The argument that Kreep should be removed from the bench — the most severe penalty that the commission can levy — marks the most serious blow against the one-time conservative legal activist who won an upset election to the bench in 2012 but whose early months as a judge were rocky.

James Murphy, Kreep’s lawyer in the discipline case, said removal was too harsh of a penalty because the judge is not corrupt or dishonest, his conduct has improved from his first year on the bench, and he is liked and respected by lawyers who appear before him.

Murphy said Kreep has acknowledged some of his conduct when he first became a judge was “inappropriate” and that a lesser penalty is warranted so Kreep could remain on the bench. He is up for re-election next year.

Removing a judge from the California bench is a rare event. Only 11 judges have been removed since 1995, according to commission statistics. The most recent was in 2016 when Valeriano Saucedo, a Tulare County judge, was removed after 14 years on the bench for having an improper relationship with a court clerk and then lying about it.

The charges against Kreep filed last year focus mostly on his conduct while on the bench, though some also cover campaign finance violations from his 2012 race.

He was accused of making a series of remarks from the bench that included comments about the physical attractiveness of women lawyers who appeared in his court, using nicknames like “Bun Head” and “Dimples” for lawyers, and speaking Spanish to Hispanics in his courtroom instead of English. All judicial proceedings are supposed to be conducted in English.

In all, Kreep faced 32 separate allegations of misconduct. Most happened during his 2012 campaign and the first year he was on the bench.

At the week-long hearing in February before a panel of judges, Kreep alternately took responsibility for some but not all of the comments, and said he did not mean to be offensive. Murphy also contended the judge was the target of a harassment campaign by senior leadership of the San Diego bench who were embarrassed that Kreep had won the seat.

Before becoming a judge, Kreep had a long legal career that included work on a number of conservative legal causes, including the discredited "birther" fight that erroneously questioned if former President Barack Obama was a U.S. citizen.

In a 90-page report issued in April, the judicial panel found Kreep committed misconduct on 29 of the 32 accusations against him. The most serious finding of “willful misconduct” centered on his comments after learning he would be sent to Traffic Court after the San Diego City Attorney’s Office said its lawyers would boycott taking cases to his misdemeanor courtroom.

That move, known as a “blanket challenge,” came in September 2013. Senior lawyers had complained about how Kreep treated some deputy city attorneys and how he handled some misdemeanor cases.

After learning of the challenge and his transfer, Kreep talked about it with some deputy public defenders and said one of them could be targeted too. Those comments about a challenge are inappropriate for a judge to make and violate judicial ethics, the judges said.

They also concluded that Kreep’s testimony at the hearing that he spoke with the defense lawyers as a courtesy to let them know he would not be hearing cases that day was “not credible.”

Lizarraga said that was just one instance where the judicial panel concluded that Kreep’s version of events “lacked candor or credibility.” For that reason, as well as the sheer number of misconduct findings, Kreep should be removed he said.

Neither Kreep, who works in the downtown San Diego Superior Court, nor his lawyer Murphy responded Tuesday to requests to comment on the latest filing.

The matter will now go before the 11-member Commission on Judicial Performance, which will decide what discipline — if any — Kreep will get. The commission can chose a range of options from issuing an advisory letter, private admonishment, public admonishment, censure or removal from the bench.

The commission also will hold a hearing of its own and can hear from both sides, then make a determination to adopt the findings and conclusions from the judicial panel that heard the case in February. A date for the commission’s hearing has not yet been set.

Full Article & Source:
Lawyer tells judicial discipline panel Judge Gary Kreep should be removed from bench for misconduct

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

Colorado lacks transparency on judicial discipline

Re: “Ala. judge in spotlight,” Aug. 7 news story.

It’s fascinating that The Denver Post chose to run a story about a judge being disciplined in another state. Do you realize that if that judge was in Colorado, the story would not be possible?

In Alabama, as in most other states, judicial discipline proceedings are public.  But in Colorado, judicial discipline proceedings are confidential.  Even if a judge is ultimately disciplined in Colorado, that discipline almost always remains private and not even the judicial performance commissions, which make recommendations to the public regarding whether to retain a judge, know about the discipline.

The confidentiality regarding judicial discipline is written into our state constitution. And if voters make it more difficult to amend the state constitution this fall, they will essentially forever enshrine Colorado in darkness regarding judicial discipline. Colorado needs sunshine on judicial discipline.

We shouldn’t make it harder to get that sunshine.

Chris Forsyth, Wheat Ridge
The writer is executive director of the Judicial Integrity Project.

Full Article & Source:
Colorado lacks transparency on judicial discipline

City attorney runs for seat of North Las Vegas judge facing recall

North Las Vegas Municipal Court Judge Catherine Ramsey, left, and former North Las Vegas Judge Robert Lueck before a recall hearing at Regional Justice Center on Thursday, June 18, 2015. (Jeff Scheid/Las Vegas Review-Journal) Follow Jeff Scheid on Twitter @jlscheid

By BETHANY BARNES
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

North Las Vegas City Attorney Sandra Douglass Morgan tried to get the state’s Commission on Judicial Discipline to act against Municipal Court Judge Catherine Ramsey.

A year and an investigation later, nothing has happened. So Douglass Morgan decided to take advantage of the recall against the judge and run for the position herself.

The recall election hasn’t been called yet, and Ramsey’s attorney said he plans to appeal a district judge’s ruling that the recall can go forward.

Douglass Morgan said she started Tuesday collecting the signatures she would need to make it on to the recall election ballot.

Ramsey’s attorney Craig Mueller said Wednesday that he was outraged about the news because last week Douglass Morgan was advising the city clerk during a court hearing where District Judge Eric Johnson ultimately ruled against Ramsey and deemed the recall valid.

“Every day I think my opinion of North Las Vegas can’t get lower,” Mueller said. “It’s the most basic conflict of interest.”

Douglass Morgan pointed out that she offered to leave the room where the clerk was testifying remotely, but the judge said she did not need to leave. Douglass Morgan also said she did not advise the clerk while she was testifying.

“I have a right to engage in the political process like any other resident if I choose to,” Douglass Morgan said. “I’d be interested for him to cite the actual rule that I violated.”

Ramsey is one of two Municipal Court judges in North Las Vegas, and this is her first term. Municipal Court handles small civil and criminal matters, and the judges are elected at-large to six-year terms.

Ramsey has argued the recall is political backlash for trying to protect court funding from being re-purposed by city officials.

She alleged that city Chief of Staff Ryann Juden threatened to send out a mailer of “half-truths,” saying “the ‘low information voters’ are not going to know the difference.”

Ethics complaints filed by two, now laid-off, human resources employees in March recounted a similar exchange.

Douglass Morgan said her motivations for running are separate from the recall effort and that she was personally frustrated by problems persisting with the judge.

“It’s been no secret that my office had issues with Judge Ramsey and I personally did whatever I could to enhance the system,” Douglass Morgan said. “I at least understand the people, and the climate, and the collective bargaining issues. At some point it became apparent to me that I could at least assist.”

Douglass Morgan said that her staff complained about how the judge treated them and that Ramsey’s courtroom became “a joke.”

More seriously, Douglass Morgan said Ramsey would recklessly dismiss cases and reduce charges.

A commonality between the politically juiced recall effort and Douglass Morgan’s formal complaint is Ramsey’s decision to charge legal expenses to her city purchasing card after Douglass Morgan told her the city wouldn’t be defending her in a wrongful termination lawsuit involving her former judicial assistant.

The city’s reason for refusing was because the employee claimed Ramsey had violated a promise she made during her campaign. As the promise happened before Ramsey became a judge, the city decided the legal spat wasn’t its problem.

Additionally, Douglas Morgan’s complaint accused Ramsey of recklessly changing charges and dismissing complaints and warrants out of spite. Ramsey has argued the warrants were invalid and a legal risk as the signatures weren’t updated to reflect the correct city attorney.

Douglass Morgan said she gathered all the evidence and submitted it to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, but as it’s a year later and nothing happened after its investigation, she is assuming the commission felt it didn’t seem important enough.

Full Article & Source:
City attorney runs for seat of North Las Vegas judge facing recall

Courting contempt

On leaving the city's old Family Court building, The Inquirer recently reported, some judges saw fit to take the fixtures with them to their new chambers. This neatly illustrated the distance between judicial impropriety and criminal guilt. No one - including the city officials who promised the court's antique accoutrements to the building's buyer - is planning to make a federal case out of this. Nor should they. Still, many Philadelphians are no doubt dismayed that their designated arbiters of justice appeared to stoop to stripping a public facility for parts.

Because judges must be held to higher standards, they are necessarily subject to special rules and a system for enforcing them. Pennsylvania's judicial discipline system was sorely needed over the past year - from the highest court, which defrocked a justice amid scandal, to Philadelphia's lowly,disbanded Traffic Court, most of which came under federal indictment. And while the state's judicial conduct rules have been laudably strengthened, their enforcement remains inconsistent at best and nonexistent at worst.

Traffic Court's implosion provided a classic example of the need for judicial discipline as well as the shortcomings of Pennsylvania's regime. While a jury found most of the judges guilty only of the least serious federal charges, the prosecution and a state Supreme Court review revealed Traffic Court to be a long-standing mockery of the judiciary, replete with favoritism for the personally and politically connected. And yet the judiciary's response has been halting and disjointed.

Full Article & Source:
Courting contempt

Another complaint against Judge Steven Jones moving forward

 The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline is moving forward with another complaint against suspended Family Court Judge Steven Jones.

Paul Deyhle, the commission’s executive director, said Tuesday that Jones has 30 days to answer the complaint, and the commission will then meet to decide whether to file a formal statement of charges against the judge.

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

Jones, 56, who was first elected to the Family Court bench in 1992, went to the Nevada Supreme Court to block the investigation, but the high court last month refused to do it.

The allegations are separate from charges the commission sustained against Jones in December that were tied to his handling of an affair with the late former prosecutor Lisa Willardson while she appeared before him.

The commission suspended Jones without pay for three months Feb. 3 after finding his relationship with Willardson violated rules of conduct for judges because he didn’t disclose it.

The Clark County coroner ruled Willardson’s death an accident. She had a combination of lethal anti-anxiety and sleeping medications in her system, the coroner concluded.

Jones and his lead lawyer, James J. Jimmerson, sought relief in the 2006 case from the high court on grounds the commission violated the statute of limitations and his due process rights when it waited until July 2012 to formally inform Jones of the investigation.

But the Supreme Court concluded that the judge’s rights were not prejudiced by the commission investigation and the court’s intervention was not warranted at this time.

The court said Jones could lodge an appeal if the judicial commission takes further action against him.

Full Article & Source:
Another complaint against Judge Steven Jones moving forward

Pa. Justices Urged To Trim Judge's Sanction For Lying

Law360, Philadelphia (March 11, 2014, 5:11 PM ET) -- The Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline acted too harshly when it issued a decision in August removing a Philadelphia County judge from the bench after withholding information about his legal and financial struggles as part of a review of judicial candidates, the state’s Supreme Court heard Tuesday.

Samuel Stretton, an attorney for former judge Thomas Nocella, told the justices during oral arguments that the lifetime ban on holding judicial office that his client was slapped with for the offense in August presented the Supreme Court with a chance to assert its authority under the Pennsylvania Constitution to supervise the whole of the state’s judicial system.

“This is a good case … for this court to consider its standard of review,” Stretton said, arguing that the disciplinary measure was out of line with punishments imposed on other judges for what he said were greater offenses. “It was inconsistent with numerous decisions by the CJD. It was too harsh.”

In 2012, Nocella was slapped with accusations by the state’s Judicial Conduct Board that, in both 2009 and 2011, he withheld material facts about his legal problems as part of an evaluation that the Philadelphia Bar Association Commission on Judicial Selection and Retention conducts for judicial candidates. In particular, Nocella failed to disclose nearly $500,000 in liens he was facing, and accusations that Nocella had intentionally dissipated the funds of a public action committee that was under court order to pay a $39,000 fine.

Full Article & Source:
Pa. Justices Urged To Trim Judge's Sanction For Lying

Punishment for former Tax Court Judge George Perez stands

The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with the Board on Judicial Standards. Former Tax Court Judge George Perez should be censured and his case should be forwarded to the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Registration.

The Supreme Court also said it would supervise any future application Perez submits to the Minnesota Bar.

In November 2012, the BJS filed a disciplinary petition against Perez alleging that he failed to issue his opinions in a timely manner, falsified court records to show he had no cases pending, refused to accept new cases and demonstrated a “pattern of delay” in issuing decisions

Chief Justice Lorie Gildea appointed a three member panel to hear the case. That body ruled the BJS proved two of the claims by “clear and convincing evidence”, but did not prove two others.
Among other findings, the panel concluded Perez made “a substantial number of false certifications over an extended period of time.”


Full Article and Source:
Punishment for former Tax Court Judge George Perez stands

Pa. disciplinary court orders indicted Phila. Traffic Court Judge Michael Lowry suspended with pay

Pennsylvania’s Court of Judicial Discipline has denied a petition by the Judicial Conduct Board to suspend indicted Philadelphia Traffic Court Judge Michael Lowry without pay, ordering that the minor bench jurist receives his salary while serving out his punishment.

In an Oct. 25 order signed by President Judge Bernard McGinley, the CJD ruled that Lowry, who is facing charges in connection with a federal ticket-fixing probe, be suspended with pay until further notice.

The ruling is retroactive to Feb. 1 of this year, and orders that Lowry immediately receive any pay that has been withheld from him since that time.

Lowry faces felony charges in connection with a federal indictment in which he and eight other current and former Philadelphia Traffic Court judges are accused of fixing motor vehicle citations for relatives, friends and political acquaintances.

Full Article and Source:
Pa. disciplinary court orders indicted Phila. Traffic Court Judge Michael Lowry suspended with pay

Family Court judge to face disciplinary hearing in December

The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline has set a Dec. 2 public hearing in Las Vegas into allegations Family Court Judge Steven Jones mishandled a romantic relationship with a prosecutor who appeared before him.

The hearing had been scheduled for July 29, but Jones and his lawyers mounted an 11th-hour campaign at the Nevada Supreme Court and District Court to block it.

Both courts denied the judge’s bid, but the hearing had to be put off amid the legal wrangling.
Jones contended the judicial commission failed to follow its own rules when investigating him and violated his due process rights.

Commission lawyers maintained the judge’s rights were protected and his last-minute effort to derail the disciplinary proceedings was a ploy to avoid sanctions.

According to a 12-count 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 didn’t disqualify himself from her cases.

The Nevada State Bar, which regulates lawyers, declined to discipline Willardson, who was fired from the district attorney’s office after the relationship was revealed.

The professional organization sent her a “letter of caution” that suggested her conduct “undermined” public trust in the justice system.

Jones has denied the misconduct allegations, first brought to light in a 2011 Las Vegas Review-Journal story.

The judicial commission suspended Jones in November after a federal grand jury charged him with participating in a $3 million investment fraud scheme.

Jones, who is to stand trial in the criminal case March 3, has continued to receive his $200,000 annual salary.

Full Article and Source:
Family Court judge to face disciplinary hearing in December

See Also:
Judge Jones tries to stop discipline hearing over alleged mishandled relationship