New York conduct commission votes to discipline three judges

ALBANY, N.Y., Dec 27 (Reuters) – The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct recommended discipline for three judges, including one who took part in a profane exchange with a 17-year-old criminal defendant.

The commission on Thursday said Buffalo City Court Judge James McLeod should be admonished for his “crude and offensive manner” in speaking with the defendant, who was not named, in February 2011. McLeod made the comments after the defendant hurled obscenities at him, the commission said.

“Even in the face of provocative, disrespectful comments by a litigant, a judge is required to be an exemplar of decorum and dignity in the courtroom, and not allow the proceedings to devolve into an undignified exchange of taunts, insults and obscenities,” the commission wrote in its determination.
It said McLeod, who has been a judge since 1999, accepted “full responsibility” for the exchange. Admonishment is the mildest form of discipline the panel may recommend.

McLeod did not immediately respond to a request for comment. His attorney, Michael Mohun, was not available to comment.

The panel on Thursday also censured Erie County Family Court Judge Paul Buchanan and admonished Douglas Horton, the town justice in Mexico, Oswego County.

Buchanan in 2011 visited a 14-year-old girl in a Buffalo hospital while he was presiding over her juvenile delinquency case, the commission said. The girl had overdosed on prescription drugs in an apparent suicide attempt, and Buchanan brought her gifts and told her “she had a lot to live for,” the commission said.

Buchanan did not seek permission from the girl’s mother or attorney to visit her, and did not disclose the visit during court proceedings, the panel said. After one of the attorneys in the matter found out about the visit and protested, Buchanan transferred the case to another judge.

Section 100.3 of the state Rules Governing Judicial Conduct bars judges from having private conversations with litigants, which are known as ex parte communications.

Full Article & Source:
New York conduct commission votes to discipline three judges

Missouri Supreme Court hears discipline case on Judge Barbara Peebles

The Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments today on the judicial discipline case of St. Louis Associate Circuit Judge Barbara Peebles.

The state’s Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline has recommended removing Peebles from her judicial position.

The commission says Peebles “engaged in a pattern of conduct that included taking the bench late and not attending scheduled court activities,” according to the docket summary.

Peebles frequently had her clerk call the docket, continue the cases, and advise attorneys of dismissals and certain warrants, the commission contends. It asserts Peebles went on vacation without properly advising her clerks, making arrangements to continue the dockets or providing a substitute judge to handle the dockets. It also said she destroyed a court record.

Full Article & Source:
Mo. Supreme Court hears discipline case on Judge Barbara Peebles

See Also:
Missouri Supreme Court considers discipline for judge

St. Louis judge suspended after she turns cases over to her clerk

Now-retired judge sanctioned during last weeks on bench

Just weeks before retiring, long-serving St. Joseph Probate Judge Peter Nemeth was officially reprimanded for making inappropriate comments to a woman seeking guardianship of a deaf teenager.

The Indiana Supreme Court accepted an agreement Dec. 14 between Nemeth and the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications that Nemeth would be sanctioned with a private reprimand, according to court documents.

Nemeth, who was also a South Bend mayor and city councilman, stepped down from his position at the end of December after serving as probate judge since 1993.

The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications, which handles allegations of judicial misconduct, filed a complaint in August stemming from two 2011 guardianship hearings.

Full Article & Source:
Now-retired judge sanctioned during last weeks on bench

See Also:
St. Joseph County probate judge accused of misconduct

Texting Ex-Broward Judge Ana Gardiner Faces Bar Inquiry

Day One of former Broward Judge Ana Gardiner’s two-day endeavor to minimize a torrent of telecommunications with a homicide prosecutor during a 2007 death-penalty trial largely played out as a cheerleading session rather than a misconduct inquiry Tuesday.

The Florida Bar referee tasked with meting out Gardiner’s disciplinary action heard from two Bar witnesses who offered less than an hour of combined testimony compared to the nearly four hours of defense testimony characterizing Gardiner as a hard-working jurist and caring mentor with an impeccable reputation for honesty and integrity.

Gardiner’s character witness list is a “Who’s Who” of high-powered attorneys, prosecutors and judges. One by one they took to the witness stand to tell Palm Beach County Circuit Judge David Crow of Gardiner’s stellar standing in the legal community.

“She was one of the finest trial judges we’ve ever been privileged to have in our county,” said Brian Cavanagh, Broward’s chief homicide prosecutor, who retried the Omar Loureiro murder case after the death sentence Gardiner imposed was overturned and Loureiro was granted a new trial.

“As a lawyer, judge and a person, she has made a difference in so many lives and our community,” said Kelly Hancock, a civil attorney, who championed Gardiner’s pro bono work. “She would never mislead anyone.”

Full Article and Source:
Texting Ex-Broward Judge Faces Bar Inquiry

St. Louis judge suspended after she turns cases over to her clerk

ST. LOUIS • A St. Louis judge was suspended Friday after a state judicial commission took the unusual step of recommending her removal from the bench.

The Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline’s report says Associate Circuit Judge Barbara Peebles abdicated her judicial responsibilities to her clerks, frequently showed up late and removed and destroyed a court document, then tried to cover it up by telling her clerk that the pair should “take (the incident) to our graves.”

The report also says that during a criminal investigation into Peebles’ conduct, prosecutors taped a phone call with her, and that the prosecutor found her explanation of the missing document not credible.

The criminal investigation and the commission’s 25-page report, filed with the court Thursday, were prompted by a Dec. 18 article in the Post-Dispatch that revealed that a clerk for Peebles handled at least 350 cases while Peebles was on vacation in China.

The clerks postponed and dismissed cases, refused to dismiss at least one and decided that as many as 18 arrest warrants should be issued. The warrants, however, didn’t become active until Peebles returned and signed them.

One lawyer called the practice “illegal as hell.”

Full Article & Source:
St. Louis judge suspended after she turns cases over to her clerk

Judicial Discipline: Commission right to expose judge’s sordid secret

Thanks to the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, the reason for Onondaga County Family Court Judge Bryan R. Hedges’ abrupt retirement April 5 is no longer a mystery.

Hedges walked off the job when confronted with allegations that he had a sexual encounter with his niece 40 years ago, when she was just 5.

By quitting, Hedges may have thought he could keep his sordid secret forever, escape public humiliation and remain an upstanding member of the judicial fraternity. The commission, to its credit, decided it had an obligation to the public to remove Hedges from office so that he could never serve again.

There is little disagreement about the facts of the case. Hedges admits that in 1972, when he was 25 years old and staying at his mother-in-law’s house in Albany, his 5-year-old niece — who is deaf and, at the time, could not communicate — walked into the bedroom while he was masturbating. The commission says he motioned her into the room and put her hand on his penis as he masturbated. Hedges disputes some of the details, but admits the encounter happened.

Hedges appears to have brushed off the incident.

He went on to become a lawyer and an assistant district attorney in Onondaga County and then, in 1985, a Family Court judge. Among his responsibilities was overseeing cases involving the sexual abuse of children. The public rightly wonders whether his own history colored his decision-making on the bench.

The victim, Ellen Cantwell Warner, has had a harder road.

As a hearing-impaired child who hadn’t yet learned American Sign Language, she could not tell her parents what had happened. When she finally told, as a teenager beginning to understand sexuality, nothing happened to Hedges. Painful memories resurfaced when the Penn State and Syracuse University sexual abuse cases blew up earlier this year. Warner courageously decided to go public to empower other victims of sexual abuse, especially deaf victims, to come forward.

Hedges continues to be in denial about the seriousness of his actions. He issued a statement saying the allegation against him was untrue and that he was not given a fair hearing. Neither claim is supported by the exhaustive record of the case. What the record does show is Hedges basely attacking the victim and her motives.

The former judge had two allies on the commission. Joel Cohen, in a dissent (pdf) joined by Paul Harding, said it was enough that Hedges resigned. (Shades of the Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal, where reassigning priests was thought to be punishment enough.) Cohen further complained the commission’s catalog of Hedges’ misconduct will “publicly and permanently stigmatize him.”

What about the victim, who has been permanently harmed and stigmatized by Hedges’ actions?

Full Article and Source:
Judicial Discipline: Commission right to expose judge’s sordid secret

Inkster judge tossed from bench on August ballot

Lansing— Michigan Supreme Court justices ruled Tuesday that embattled Inkster Judge Sylvia James be removed from the bench.

The justices agreed with the findings of the Judicial Tenure Committee and ruled Tuesday in a 17-page document that James misappropriated court funds by spending thousands on self-promotions; committed administrative improprieties, including an improper dress code; violated a court anti-nepotism policy; and lied to investigators working to uncover wrongdoings.

“The cumulative effect of respondent’s misconduct, coupled with its duration, nature and pervasiveness convinces this court that she is unfit for judicial office,” the justices’ opinion said. “Although some of her misconduct, considered in isolation, does not justify such a severe sanction, taken as a whole her misconduct rises to a level that requires her removal from office.”

Only seven Michigan judges have been removed by the state Supreme Court since 1980. About a dozen judges have been removed since 1969, when the Judicial Tenure Commission — the investigative body of the high court — was created.

Neither James nor her attorney, Mayer Morganroth of Birmingham, could be reached for comment Tuesday. James, who had served as the lone judge of Inkster’s 22nd District Court since 1998, was placed on paid administrative leave on April 13, 2011. The tenure commission filed formal charges of judicial misconduct in October 2011. She officially was suspended with pay that December and found guilty of misconduct in April. The justices’ruling is effective immediately and James is off the payroll.

Judge Richard Hammer of Garden City’s 21st District Court took over as chief judge for both courts following her suspension.

Despite the ruling, James could be back on the bench as early as Jan. 1. She is one of eight candidates for the judgeship in the Aug. 7 primary. If she finishes first or second in the primary, she’ll be up for re-election in November.

That scenario wasn’t lost on Chief Justice Robert P. Young and Justice Stephen J. Markman, who dissented in part with the majority opinion, saying James also should have been suspended for one six-year term.

“Although the majority’s ordering removal from office addresses the immediate harm caused by Judge James, it is an inadequate response and fails to address the likelihood of continuing harm,” the dissenting opinion read.

“Given Judge James’ lack of remorse and continuing refusal to acknowledge that she, too, is bound by the laws of this state, there is no reason to believe that Judge James will not continue to place her own will above the will of the people.”

Full Article and Source:
Inkster judge tossed from bench on August ballot

St. Joseph County probate judge accused of misconduct

SOUTH BEND— A long-serving St. Joseph County probate judge is accused of misconduct on the bench in connection with alleged remarks made to a woman in a guardianship hearing for a deaf teenager last year.

The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications has filed one count of misconduct against St. Joseph Probate Court Judge Peter Nemeth, it announced Tuesday.

Nemeth has served as the county’s probate judge since 1993 and is retiring at the end of this year.

The commission’s complaint alleges that Nemeth made inappropriate comments to a woman in court as a potential guardian for a deaf 18-year-old when she asked for a court-provided interpreter for the teenager.

The commission said Nemeth first denied her request to supply a sign language interpreter for the woman, and instead ordered her to provide one herself.

He later appointed one when the woman referenced portions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the complaint said.

During the May guardianship hearing, the woman testified she had not worked or paid taxes in the past 10 years, the commission said.

The commission alleges Nemeth later suggested to the woman she should not have asked the court to pay for an interpreter when she had not paid taxes for years.

Nemeth on Tuesday said he will fight the charge against him.

Full Article and Source:
St. Joseph County probate judge accused of misconduct

See Also:
N. Ind. judge accused of making improper comment

Misconduct charges against judges make news much quicker than those against lawyers

News of the professional-misconduct charges against state Sen. Jeffrey Piccola didn’t surface until about a month after they were filed.

The state Supreme Court Office of Discipline doesn’t breathe a word about charges lodged against lawyers until attorneys respond to the charges and hearings on the complaints have been scheduled.

In Piccola’s case, the office filed the charges June 29, but didn’t make them publicly available until July 30.

Even then, the office doesn’t go out of its way to alert the public about charges. It posts hearing dates and the names of those being charged on its website, but it doesn’t give background information on the charges unless asked, and it doesn’t issue news releases on the matters.

That isn’t how it works with the Judicial Conduct Board of Pennsylvania, which disciplines judges.

As soon as charges are lodged against a judge, the information goes public.

Full Article and Source:
Misconduct charges against judges make news much quicker than those against lawyers