|

Foul-Mouthed Judge Disciplined for Harangues From Bench
By Michael Booth
New Jersey Law Journal
New York Lawyer
September 30, 2008
Essex County Judge F. Michael Giles has been reprimanded, but
not suspended, for directing profanity-laced invective at lawyers
and litigants on multiple occasions.
The New Jersey Supreme
Court on Monday followed the Advisory Committee on Judicial
Conduct's recommendation that Giles not be suspended, based on
findings that he was suffering from health problems and personal
family tragedies at the time his outbursts occurred.
Giles did not contest the
ACJC's presentment, issued July 30, and waived his right to a
hearing before the court, which issued its order without opinion.
The ACJC found that Giles,
64, a judge since 1991, used expletives, vulgarity and disrespectful
language in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct; that his
intemperate conduct was prejudicial to the administration of
justice; and that his sarcastic and disrespectful comments about a
pending ethics grievance impugned the integrity of and demonstrated
disrespect for the judiciary.
"Moreover, the Committee
cannot consider Respondent's conduct to have been aberrational," the
ACJC said. "Similar prior incidents involving intemperate, insulting
and offensive behavior demonstrate that the recent misconduct was
not isolated or exceptional."
The ACJC focused mainly on
three recent instances of vitriolic behavior:
• On April 10, 2006, Giles
erupted at Sebastian Bio, of Bio & Laracca in Orange,
N.J., who was representing Altereek Dunne on a bench warrant. Before
the case was heard, Bio escorted Dunne to the Essex County Sheriff's
Department for processing. Bio later learned from the public
defender's office that Dunne had been remanded to the sheriff's
custody for outstanding municipal warrants.
When Bio appeared in Giles'
courtroom, the judge said he could do nothing about the
incarceration on the municipal warrants. Bio asked Giles to address
only the Superior Court warrant. Giles, after making sure he was off
the record, said: "I said get the [expletive] out of my courtroom.
What the [expletive] don't you understand? Shut the [expletive] up
and get the [expletive] out of here. I have a meeting this
afternoon."
• On Dec. 12, 2007, at a
settlement conference in a suit against Spencer Savings Bank, Giles
railed at bank lawyer Diane Bettino, of Reed Smith in
Princeton, "Did you wake up on the wrong ... [expletive] ... side of
the bed?"
• On Feb. 5, 2008, after
the ACJC's initial ethics complaint was filed, Giles heard arguments
on pretrial motions in the bank suit. Off the record, he asked the
lawyers whether they had read news articles about the complaint,
which had prompted Assignment Judge Patricia Costello to transfer
him from the Criminal Part to the Civil Part. When they said they
had, Giles said he had told Costello he could just as easily curse
at lawyers in civil cases as in criminal ones. Bettino reminded him
he had cursed at her in the Dec. 12 incident, and Giles replied that
he would call her as a witness at his ethics hearing since she
seemed to have survived the incident and was faring well before him.
The ACJC also recounted a
prior disciplinary action. In 1998, the ACJC sent Giles a warning
letter based on two complaints about his discourteous conduct toward
litigants in landlord-tenant cases. Giles acknowledged that he had
been discourteous and assured the panel he would not repeat the
conduct.
In its July presentment,
the ACJC found that Giles' prior transgressions and the more recent
ones "demonstrate a pattern of improper conduct that calls into
question his judgment and his ability to conform his conduct to the
requirements of the Code of Judicial Conduct."
However, the ACJC noted
that Giles had been under considerable stress for a period of time.
His 40-year-old daughter died in late 2004, leaving him and his wife
in charge of their 5- and 10-year-old grandchildren. His
mother-in-law died at about the same time. In January 2006, he lost
sight in his left eye due to glaucoma. Doctors performed a brain
angiogram in 2007 due to concerns that the glaucoma was due to a
growth in the brain.
Asked about the state of
his health at a ACJC hearing in June, Giles said he was feeling
better and undergoing counseling but had rejected a suggestion by
his wife that he go on disability. He apologized for his behavior.
In urging a reprimand, the
ACJC followed in Matter of Sadofsky, 98 N.J. 434 (1985), which
imposed that discipline on a judge for intemperate, offensive
language. Like Giles, Joseph Sadofsky blamed his outbursts on stress
-- specifically, dealing with a heavy case load.
The court accepted the
ACJC's findings that Giles violated Canon 1, requiring high
standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the
judiciary is preserved; Canon 2A, which requires judges to respect
and comply with the law and act at all times in a manner that
promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary; Canon 3A(2), requiring judges to maintain order and
decorum in judicial proceedings; and Canon 3A(3), requiring judges
to be patient, dignified and courteous. He also violated Rule
2:15-8(a)(4), barring conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice and that brings the judicial office in disrepute.
Giles' lawyer, Thomas
Ashley, was away from his Newark office and could not be reached
for comment.
Federal
Judge Slammed by 5th Circuit in Disciplinary Action
Pamela A. MacLean
Law.com
September 15, 2008
U.S. District Judge G.
Thomas Porteous of Louisiana, already faced with a
recommendation for impeachment
and suspended from the bench since the spring, got more bad news
Thursday from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The circuit's Judicial
Council ordered all his cases removed for two years, or until
Congress acts on the impeachment request, removed Porteous' staff
and issued a public reprimand, along with hundreds of pages of
previously secret documents in the investigation.
The judicial complaint
against Porteous alleges he "solicited and received" cash from
lawyers with cases pending before him, lied on financial disclosure
documents and committed perjury by signing false statements in his
personal bankruptcy case. In re Complaint for Judicial
Misconduct against U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.,
07-05-351-0085.
He was not been charged
with any criminal conduct by the Justice Department.
Chief Judge Edith Jones
released hundreds of pages of previously secret documents that
include Porteous' own response to the allegations, a 49-page dissent
by four circuit judges who opposed the impeachment recommendation in
April and an account of psychiatric and medical evaluations showing
Porteous was severely depressed after the loss of his home in
Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the death of his wife a year later.
Porteous' attorney, Lewis
Unglesby, of Baton Rouge's Unglesby & Marionneaux, called Thursday's
action, "pure meanness. There is no good reason to do that now. He
is already suspended and facing impeachment."
Unglesby said that he filed
an affidavit with the Judicial Conference of the U.S. that accused
Jones of interfering in the case by calling Justice Department
prosecutors and pressing them to know when Porteous would be
indicted.
"Why is the chief judge
calling on a grand jury matter?" he said. "From the legal
perspective, normal people don't get to call and ask those
questions, nor do they get anyone to answer their calls. I've never
heard of this before and it scares the heck out of me," Unglesby
said.
Jones could not be reached
at her chambers office Thursday, but has declined to comment on
judicial discipline cases in the past.
The 5th Circuit recommended
an impeachment action be brought in an April letter to the Judicial
Conference of the U.S., the policymaking body of the judiciary. The
Conference agreed and passed its own recommendation on to Congress
June 23.
In a dissent from the 5th
Circuit action, four judges wrote, "A careful and judicious analysis
of the evidence in the present case fails to demonstrate that Judge
Porteous committed possible treason, bribery, or a high crime or
misdemeanor." Those are the only grounds for considering
impeachment, they said.
Unglesby said he learned
Thursday that Congress would not take up the impeachment question
until 2009.
He called the latest
reprimand "either wonderful because it negates the whole impeachment
because he has now been punished, or it is demonstrative of some
kind of personal animosity for reasons we don't understand."
If Porteous is ultimately
impeached by Congress, "he would be the only judge in the history of
the Republic to be recommended for impeachment, but never indicted
criminally."
In his own defense,
Porteous responded to the 5th Circuit's investigation saying in
December 2007 that he has a genetic pre-disposition to depression,
shown by his father's suicide. That he has been dependent on alcohol
and worsened his financial problems by gambling.
He said he has not gambled
in two years and is beginning to get his life "back in order."
Unglesby accused the 5th
Circuit of "over punishing" Porteous because it is "embarrassed" by
the light punishment of U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent, in
Houston. Kent was suspended four months after a former clerk
complained he fondled her and made inappropriate sexual comments.
Kent was
indicted on Aug. 28 on three
criminal counts of sexual abuse of a female employee.
Former NY
Judge Admits Providing Prostitutes for Pals
By Joel Stashenko
New York Law Journal
New York Lawyer
September 5, 2008
NEW YORK - Ronald H. Tills,
a retired acting Supreme Court justice and Court of Claims judge,
pleaded guilty yesterday in federal court in Buffalo to violating
the federal Mann Act by transporting a prostitute across state
lines.
Mr. Tills, 73, admitted
before Judge William Skretny of the Western District of New York
that he recruited prostitutes to service members of a fraternal
club, the Royal Order of Jesters, at gatherings in Pennsylvania,
Florida, Kentucky and Ontario in 2005, 2006 and 2007. In his plea
agreement with Western District U.S. Attorney Terrance P. Flynn, Mr.
Tills also acknowledged arranging for women to attend a meeting of
the Buffalo chapter of the Jesters in 2001 in Dunkirk, N.Y., to have
sex with members of the club.
He faces from 27 months to
33 months in prison during sentencing, which Judge Skretny scheduled
for Jan. 12.
Mr. Tills' lawyer, Terrence
M. Connors of Connors & Vilardo in Buffalo, said in an interview
yesterday that Mr. Tills "accepted responsibility for his actions
and admitted in court that he committed a crime, that his conduct
was wrong and his judgment was horrible." Mr. Tills also agreed to
aid in the prosecution of others involved in the procurement of
prostitutes, a role that could earn him a shorter prison sentence,
Mr. Connors said.
Mr. Tills, of Hamburg, Erie
County, was a judge from 1995 until his retirement in 2005. He
resigned in March as part-time judicial hearing officer for the
state as the FBI and U.S. Border Patrol agents investigated
allegations of his involvement with prostitutes and the Jesters'
organization, Mr. Connors said. Mr. Tills was also a Republican
state assemblyman from 1969-77.
One NY
Judge Resigns, Another Disciplined Over Misconduct
By Joel Stashenko
New York Law Journal
New York Lawyer
September 4, 2008
A town court justice has
resigned and another has been admonished following separate
investigations by the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
The commission said
Jewett Town
Justice Rebecca McGowan resigned as of July 31 for misconduct
that included dismissing two dog control charges against her
brother-in-law. She was also accused of failing to disqualify
herself in several other cases involving friends or family members
and of failing to deposit court funds within the prescribed
three-day period after receipt, the commission contended.
A non-lawyer, Ms. McGowan
had been a town justice since 2005.
The commission also
announced yesterday that Cairo
Town Justice Thomas W. Baldwin has been admonished for
allowing "significant" delays in three small claims cases, including
one matter in which he did not issue a decision, apparently because
the file in the case had been lost.
Mr. Baldwin, who is also
not an attorney, has been a town justice since 1982.
Both Jewett and Cairo are
in Greene County.
Judge
Again Accused of Rudeness,
Belligerence Towards Lawyers, Litigants
By Pamela A. MacLean
The National Law Journal
New York Lawyer
September 3, 2008
For the second time in four years, Judge Judith Eiler, of
Washington's King County District Court, faces a disciplinary
hearing for allegedly rude and belligerent behavior toward lawyers
and pro se litigants in her court.
The Washington state
Commission on Judicial Conduct, issued an order Thursday setting a
fact-finding hearing for Nov. 18 in Olympia, Wash.
The commission sanctioned
Eiler in 2004 for engaging "in a pattern and practice of
discourteous, intemperate and undignified behavior" and ordered her
to undergo behavior and sensitivity training.
In June, the commission
found probable cause to believe Eiler again engaged in a patter of
"rude, impatient, undignified and intimidating treatment" of lawyers
and self-represented litigants in court.
She threatened to fire
court personnel if litigants spoke to them and prevented some pro se
litigants from fully presenting their testimony in court, according
to the 12-page statement of charges.
The statement lists 15
specific cases by number from 2006 through 2008.
In addition, Eiler was
accused of reversing an order and dismissing a traffic infraction in
a way that suggested it was motivated by self-interest, according to
the complaint.
The earlier complaint
identified nine cases between 2002 and 2003 in which she was also
angry, abusive and threatening to litigants, according to the
complaint.
Eiler was elected to the
state bench in 1992. She has served on the executive committee for
the statewide District and Municipal Court Judges Association.
The judge could not be
reached Friday to comment on the charges.
Editorial:
Phony Court Order - Judicial Arrogance
The Philadelphia Inquirer
August 15, 2008
Philadelphia Municipal
Court Judge James M. DeLeon could benefit from an extended lesson in
humility.
DeLeon is facing
disciplinary action for an outrageous abuse of his authority. The
state Judicial Conduct Board has accused him of misconduct for
issuing a bogus "stay-away" order against a man who displeased one
of the judge's pals.
The episode unfolded like
this:
DeLeon, a judge since 1988,
attended a Center City social event in August 2005 with members of
the city's Romanian community. There he met George Sfedu, a
Rittenhouse Square resident who was Romania's honorary consul
general to Philadelphia (who knew?).
Sfedu told the judge that a
neighbor was having "unwanted verbal contact" with Sfedu's teenage
daughter. He wanted the neighbor, Lee Corley, to stop.
DeLeon suggested that
Sfedu's wife, Center City lawyer Susan Satkowski, call the judge's
chambers to obtain a "stay-away" order. The judge had his secretary
prepare a legal-looking document accusing Corley of "unlawful
activity." DeLeon signed it on Sept. 7, 2005, and sent the document
to Corley, ordering him not to have any contact with Satkowski or
her daughter.
"Violation of this order
will result in your arrest," it stated, on a sheet of paper
captioned "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Lee Corley."
But this order was not
docketed in court records, nor was it issued in connection with a
pending criminal case. It wasn't valid. Before it was issued, Corley
wasn't notified or given a chance to attend a hearing.
DeLeon might have gotten
away with this stunt, but Corley hired a lawyer. They sent a letter
to the judge on Sept. 29, 2005, questioning the validity of the
order.
At this point, you can
almost see the judge starting to sweat.
For four months, the judge
apparently didn't respond. So Corley's lawyer sent another letter to
him on Jan. 30, 2006.
This time the judge
arranged to meet Corley and his lawyer in court. DeLeon signed a new
"order" on Feb. 2, 2006, vacating his earlier "stay-away" decree.
It, too, was not filed in
court.
The judge now faces a
hearing before the Court of Judicial Discipline, which can impose
punishment ranging from a reprimand to suspension to removal from
office.
DeLeon's lawyer says the
judge doesn't dispute the charges, and will essentially throw
himself on the mercy of the court. He said DeLeon had an exemplary
record prior to this incident.
DeLeon's actions merit at
least a suspension. His lawyer points out that the judge didn't
benefit from his "major error in judgment," but that's not the only
consideration here.
He abused his office to
help an acquaintance. That's egregious.
And the four-month gap
between Corley's letters suggests that the judge was hoping he could
get away with it, rather than own up to his serious misconduct.
By doing so, he turned his
small corner of the city's justice system into a mockery.
Sexual
Harassment Probe of Federal Judge
Widens to Look at Gifts, Purchase of His Home
New York Lawyer
July 21, 2008
HOUSTON (AP) - A probe of a
federal judge being investigated for sexual harassment is now
looking into whether he accepted gifts without reporting them and if
rules were violated in a home sale deal arranged by a lawyer with
dozens of cases in his court, a newspaper reported Sunday.
The Justice Department
began investigating U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent last year after
a female employee accused him of repeatedly harassing her over four
years.
Cathy McBroom has said the
harassment culminated at the judge's Galveston chambers in a March
2007 incident in which the judge allegedly pulled up her blouse and
bra and tried to escalate contact until they were interrupted.
Kent's attorney, Dick
DeGuerin also has called any alleged sexual contact between Kent and
his former case manager, McBroom, "enthusiastically consensual."
Since the federal probe
into the allegations began, several prominent attorneys have been
subpoenaed by federal prosecutors to appear before a Houston grand
jury involving other allegations of judicial misconduct, according
to documents and interviews obtained by the Houston Chronicle.
Lawyers and former
co-workers said investigators are looking into parties, a 2001 trip
to London and meals attorneys had bought for Kent at Galveston
restaurants.
DeGuerin, Kent's attorney,
confirmed prosecutors requested records about a real estate deal in
which attorney Kurt Arnold helped convince his mother to buy Kent's
home in 2006 in Galveston.
The home was valued by the
county at $224,090 and sold for $339,500. Kent also was able to
negotiate a reduced real estate commission, saving him more than
$15,000. The judge had actively solicited offers from several
lawyers who practiced in his court.
Kent sold the home to
Arnold after getting a legal opinion from his law clerk that
concluded the sale to a lawyer who practiced in his courtroom was
not "expressly prohibited."
DeGuerin said the house
deal was legitimate, that Kent always treated all attorneys fairly
and the judge has done nothing improper or illegal. He claims
investigators are going all out because a federal judge "is a big
pelt."
"I think they're trying to
find anything that they can, and this should be a dead end,"
DeGuerin said.
Randy Schaffer, Arnold's
attorney, said his client violated no laws. He refused comment about
the judge's conduct.
Tom Fitton, president of
the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Judicial Watch, said the sale
"has all the hallmarks of something that's not on the up and up. ...
A full investigation may exonerate (Kent) — but a full investigation
must be done."
Investigators are also
looking at gifts Kent might have received while on the bench.
Kent's disclosure forms for
2001-2006 show he reported receiving no gifts since 2002.
But in interviews with the
Chronicle, former court employees and attorneys say that Kent
continued to receive expensive lunches and drinks from other lawyer
friends.
In 2001, an insurance
company reimbursed Kent an unspecified amount for "round trip
transportation only" to appear at a London conference.
The same year, Richard
Melancon, an attorney friend who had dozens of cases in Kent's
court, gave the judge a catered wedding reception valued at $1,000.
A few months after the party, Kent's supervising federal judges
abruptly reassigned Melancon's cases to another court.
McBroom's attorney, Rusty
Hardin, said he is frustrated that it has taken so long to review a
sexual molestation case he calls a "slam dunk." He said he does not
understand why federal prosecutors seem more interested in gifts and
real estate.
The Judicial Council of the
5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reprimanded Kent in September,
ordering him on paid leave for four months. He was also reassigned
from Galveston to Houston.
Who's
Laughing Now?: Judge's "Joke"
Gets Her Convicted of Perjury
By The Associated Press
New York Lawyer
July 15, 2008
VALDOSTA, Ga. — A federal jury in Valdosta has convicted a Clinch
County magistrate judge of perjury and making false statements to
federal investigators, but it acquitted her of a charge of
conspiracy to commit extortion by a public official.
Magistrate Judge Linda C.
Peterson faces up
to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines after being found
guilty Monday. A U.S. District Court judge will sentence her at a
later date.
Prosecutors said at
Peterson's trial last week that she lied under oath to a grand jury
when she denied having ever suggested to criminal defendants that
they hire her father as a bail bondsman.
She was also charged with
making false statements to FBI agents investigating possible
corruption in the rural south Georgia county.
Peterson's lawyers said she
was joking when she recommended an FBI informant hire her father.
The
Daily Report contributed to this story.
Ethics
Flap Surrounds Judge Who Presided
Over Politician ExPartner's Divorce
By Shannon McCaffrey
The Associated Press
New York Lawyer
June 17, 2008
ATLANTA — A Paulding County
judge who initially said he did not handle the divorce of Georgia
House Speaker Glenn Richardson has reversed himself, telling
The Associated Press on Monday that he did dissolve the Republican
lawmaker's marriage.
Superior Court Judge
James Osborne is a former law partner of Richardson and
Osborne's daughter is an associate at the speaker's law firm. Ethics
watchdog George Anderson filed a complaint against Osborne with the
state Judicial Qualifications Commission arguing that he should have
recused himself from Richardson's divorce proceeding in February.
Questions have surrounded
Richardson's uncontested divorce from his wife, Susan, since Osborne
sealed all records in the high-profile case. Sealing divorce files
is unusual in Georgia, lawyers said. And Osborne's ties to
Richardson have raised eyebrows.
In February, Osborne told
The Associated Press that he only signed an order sealing the
records and did not handle the actual divorce. He said the case was
in the hands of fellow Paulding County Superior Court Judge Tonny
Beavers, who was in line to handle the case under the court's
rotation system of assigning cases.
But on Monday, Osborne said
it landed back in his lap after Beavers and Ken Vinson,
another Paulding County Superior Court judge, recused themselves
from the proceedings.
"I granted it (the divorce)
after the appropriate waiting period," Osborne told the AP.
Neither Beavers or Vinson
immediately returned a phone call seeking comment Monday.
While the uncontested
divorce has been finalized, Anderson still has a motion pending
seeking to unseal the records.
"Our whole case is that
Speaker Richardson should not get special treatment because he is a
public official," Anderson's lawyer Gerry Weber said.
Weber said questions about
what role Osborne played merely reinforce the argument that the
records should be open to public inspection.
As first reported by the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Osborne recused himself from hearing
Anderson's motion questioning the decision to seal the divorce
records.
Walter Matthews,
chief judge of the Rome judicial circuit, has now been assigned to
handle the motion.
Osborne said Monday he
stepped aside because he "did not want the public to feel any degree
of uncertainty that there would be an impartial judgment in the
case."
Asked why he did not also
decline to handle the divorce, Osborne said he did not feel he
needed to.
"I never felt, and I still
don't feel, that I have any partiality or prejudice to anyone
involved in that case," he said.
A spokeswoman for
Richardson did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment
Monday.
The status of Richardson's
marriage had been the topic of speculation at the state Capitol
since Georgia Democrats filed an ethics complaint against him in
January 2007 alleging that he had an "improper relationship" with a
female lobbyist at Atlanta Gas Light.
The complaint alleged that
the relationship took place at the same time Richardson was
co-sponsoring a pipeline bill being sought by her employer.
A legislative ethics panel
dismissed the complaint.
Editorial: How Do We Rebuild Trust in the Justice System?
Shreveport Times
June 4, 2008
That blindfold on Lady Justice is no doubt damp with tears of
sorrow — and anger — now that federal prosecutors have proven two
Caddo Parish judges were willing to sell their judicial power for
cash.
State District Judge Michael Walker and Juvenile Judge Vernon
Claville were convicted of taking bribes in exchange for lowering
bonds for criminal suspects. But the public's logical question is
whether such criminal behavior could have extended into the
courtroom through verdicts and sentences. As one law enforcement
official observed, if you're willing to cross one ethical or legal
boundary, crossing the next one becomes all that much easier.
To say the guilty verdicts cast a shadow of public cynicism, if
not outrage, over the criminal justice system is both sad and
accurate. No longer is the issue simple judicial competence or work
ethic, but that within the legal purview of two robed jurists, an
uneven playing field existed that favored those with means or
connections.
How do you restore confidence in the system, particularly one
that is cloaked in judicial privilege? How do you rebuild trust in a
process where sheer volume of cases and record-keeping can make
oversight virtually impossible for the average citizen, taxpayers
who have little contact with the system save for the occasional jury
summons?
Rather than accountability, the current system of electing judges
can promote complacency, even unchecked power: once elected, judges
seldom face challengers let alone public criticism from the local
bar or the law enforcement establishment. Note that federal
authorities had to prosecute this corruption case.
Honest and hardworking members of the criminal justice system
should feel a burning rage at this betrayal of two of their own.
Consider the undercover officer who works long and risky hours to
make a case against a drug dealer, the judge who diligently chops
away at backlogs to provide both fair and speedy justice.
And consider it's an election year for members of the Caddo
justice system.
Are there any administrative fixes that can begin repairing
public trust? It would be a good question posed to judges on the
stump this fall about whether Caddo judges should return to a system
of rotation between the civil and criminal sections of the court.
The system that year after year found Walker presiding over drug
cases is in part a function of seniority. Does the
expertise-through-tenure argument outweigh the public wondering if
periodic shakeups on bench assignments could provide a safeguard
against abuse of power?
Certainly, the issue of criminal court efficiency will get an
airing as Caddo Parish Sheriff Steve Prator makes his case for more
jail space. His statistics show Caddo Correctional Center
approaching prisoner overload, exacerbated in large part by so many
detainees awaiting trial. An acquittal, of course, turns over a CCC
bed. Convictions either send the inmate to a state prison or result
in more revenue to run the taxpayer-supported Caddo prison since the
Louisiana Department of Corrections pays sheriffs almost seven times
more for housing its prisoners than what the Parish Commission pays
for parish detainees.
Digging into the incarceration numbers will help determine if
justice is grinding slow because of more aggressive policing,
inefficient judges or sluggish prosecution. Or combination of all
three?
For now the public owes a debt to investigators and U.S. Attorney
Donald Washington's prosecution team for ferreting out this judicial
corruption. Caddo Parish voters should now expect their court
officials to seriously address how best to kindle public confidence
and assure integrity in the system.
Drunk-Driving, Cross Dressing Federal Judge Quits for Real
By Sheri Qualters
The National Law Journal
New York Lawyer
June 3, 2008
BOSTON — U.S. District of
Massachusetts federal bankruptcy Judge Robert Somma, who
tried to rescind his resignation tendered after a drunk driving
arrest, will not return to the bench.
In a two-sentence press
release issued on May 30, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said
Somma is "leaving to pursue other endeavors" and that "the court
appreciates the service that Judge Somma has rendered." Somma's
attorney Robert B. Carpenter of Carpenter & Associates
in Boston declined to comment but said his office may make a
statement later this week.
Somma was arrested Feb. 6,
while wearing a cocktail dress and high heels, according to
Associated Press reports.
He pleaded no contest in
Manchester District Court in Manchester, N.H., to a misdemeanor
charge of allegedly driving while intoxicated on Feb. 13. The court
also suspended Somma's driver's license for one-year and he paid
$600 in fines and penalties. Somma notified the court system on Feb.
15 that he would resign on April 1, but the date was later pushed
back to May 15 when Somma attempted to rescind the resignation.
Somma was initially on paid
leave, but court officials have declined to discuss his pay status
since April 1, the date his resignation was originally slated to
take effect.
Support from the bankruptcy
bar and other local attorneys and professionals prompted Somma's
change of heart. More than 200 bankruptcy lawyers sent a letter on
his behalf to the 1st Circuit.
Groups of non-bankruptcy
lawyers and financial advisors and consultants had their own letter
writing campaigns, said Paul D. Moore, a Duane Morris
bankruptcy partner in Boston who participated in the bankruptcy bar
letter.
Family
Court Judge Abused Contempt Power
June 3, 2008
North Country Gazette
TROY—Linda C. Griffin, a
Rensselaer County Family Court judge since 1994, has been censured
by the state Commission on Judicial Commission for abusing the
contempt power.
The judicial disciplinary
panel found that Judge Griffin "abused the contempt power" by
holding litigants in three different cases in contempt of court
without explicitly warning them of the consequences of their
behavior and without an order stating the facts justifying the
contempt citation, which is necessary to enable appellate review.
"Regardless of whether the parties’ initial behavior provided
sufficient basis for a contempt holding," the commission said that,
pursuant to Judiciary Law, Judge Griffin had an obligation to warn
the litigants "explicitly that their conduct could result in a
summary citation for criminal contempt resulting in incarceration,"
and to give the litigants a chance to "desist from the conduct."One
litigant was held in jail for less than an hour, and the other two
were held for seven days. One of those two, a 16-year-old, had
already been remanded to a juvenile detention facility and did not
spend any additional time in custody as a result of the contempt.
The commission noted that
Judge Griffin was "contrite," acknowledged that she did not comply
with statutory mandates and was cooperative throughout the
proceeding. In addition, after the three incidents in this case, the
judge attended a judicial education and training program on contempt
run by the Office of Court Administration.Griffin has been an Acting
Justice of the Supreme Court since 2001. Her current term expires in
2013.
Family
Court Judge Slammed
By Third Appellate District Court
Coastal Post
Marin County's News Monthly - Free Press
June 2, 2008
Bolinas, CA. Ulf Carlsson
has won his appeal against a shocking action by Sacramento Family
Court Judge Peter McBrien for violation of fundamental fairness in a
divorce trial. The Third Appellate District Court of Appeal justices
unanimously agreed: "We shall conclude that the trial court's
actions deprived the husband of his due process right to a fair
hearing."
The three justices determined that the "...trial court
essentially ran the trial on a stopwatch, curtailing the parties'
right to present evidence on all material disputed issues. Using the
constant threat of a mistrial, Judge McBrien pressured (Mr.
Carlsson's) Attorney Huddle into rushing through her presentation
and continuing without a break."
"After displaying impatience and reluctance in allowing the parties
adequate time to complete their presentations, (Judge McBrien) ended
the trial while an expert witness for the husband was on the witness
stand and counsel was in the midst of asking him a question."
The Appellate Court likened the situation to having "a football team
be declared the winner where the referee stopped the game in the
fourth quarter, on the ground that the team had a sizeable lead and
a comeback by the opponent was unlikely."
"By arbitrarily cutting off the presentation of evidence, Judge
McBrien rendered the trial fundamentally unfair and violated Ulf's
right to due process. (U.S. Const., 14th Amend., § 1; Cal. Const.,
art. I, § 24.)"
Judge McBrien already has a criminal record for ordering the
destruction of public property. He received a public admonishment in
2002 for conduct that "evidenced disregard of the principles of
personal and official conduct...and constituted conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office
into disrepute."
He continues to bring his office into disrepute in new and different
ways. The appellate court found no other case like this one, in
which a trial judge literally walked out of the courtroom in
mid-trial.
Judge McBrien is currently the subject of a recall petition filed by
outraged Sacramento citizens who are concerned about his reckless
disregard for the physical and sexual safety of children in custody
disputes, in addition to his ethical and due process violations.
In his response to the Notice of Intention to Circulate Recall
Petition on February 15, 2008, Judge McBrien declared under penalty
of perjury: "I deny disgracing the American Judiciary System. I deny
giving children to sexually or physically abusive parents. I deny
cutting down trees on public property. I deny abandoning a trial
mid-session or altering any public record."
Judge
Disciplined for Ruling in Cases of Hubby's Bank
New York Lawyer
By Scott Bauer
The Associated Press
May 30, 2008
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The
Wisconsin Supreme Court reprimanded one of its own Wednesday, giving
Justice Annette Ziegler the lightest possible punishment for
hearing cases involving a bank where her husband was a paid
director.
It was the first time the
state high court has taken such an action, and her colleagues could
have suspended her or removed her from the bench.
Ziegler ruled in favor of
West Bend Savings Bank in several cases she heard as a Washington
County judge between 2001 and last year. The court said Ziegler's
"serious and significant" offense diminished public confidence in
the legal system.
The state's judicial code
requires judges to withdraw from cases in which they have a
significant financial interest that could raise questions about
their impartiality.
Ziegler called her hearing
of the cases an "inadvertent error."
"I appreciate that this
matter is now concluded," she said in a statement. "I look forward
to continuing to serve the people of Wisconsin."
Mike McCabe, director of
the watchdog group Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which filed the
complaint, argued that suspension or removal from office would be
more appropriate.
"The discipline will be
seen by the public as nothing more than a slap on the wrist," McCabe
said. "Clearly the court is operating under a cloud right now."
Ziegler, 44, began her
10-year term on the Supreme Court in August.
Judge's
Pre-Retirement Ruling for Firm
He Planned To Join Irks Colleagues
By Michael Booth
New Jersey Law Journal
New York Lawyer
May 8, 2008
It was pretty clear on
Tuesday that the state Supreme Court didn't approve of what Judge
Gerald Escala did just before retiring in 2005: rule for the
client of a firm he was negotiating to join.
The quandary is whether the
misstep warrants a new trial.
"This was two years of
contentious litigation," argued James Keegan, representing a
dissatisfied party in Denike v. Cupo, A-61-07. "Before the
ink was dry, negotiations were on-going."
"A judge cannot have
progress toward a relationship with one side of the case and
persuade the other side he can fairly hear the case," said Keegan,
of West Orange's Bendit Weinstock.
Escala became of counsel to
Herten, Burstein, Sheridan, Cevasco, Bottinelli, Litt & Harz
in Hackensack, a little more than a month after he signed the final
order of judgment in the case.
But Escala and firm partner
Thomas Herten insist there was no conflict of interest or
other ethics violation. While Rule of Professional Conduct 1:12(c)
says a lawyer cannot negotiate for employment with a party with whom
he is involved in litigation, the Code of Judicial Conduct is silent
on how a judge should handle a pre-retirement job hunt.
The Appellate Division
sided with Herten, Burstein, saying Escala probably should have
followed the rule federal judges must follow - waiting a reasonable
amount of time before negotiating with the firm - but noting that
New Jersey judges face no such restrictions.
A Supreme Court ad hoc
committee, chaired by retired Chief Justice Deborah Poritz, is
reviewing the Code of Judicial Conduct in response to the American
Bar Association's revisions to the Model Code of Judicial Conduct
last year.
In the meantime, there are
real dollars at stake for Keegan's client, Michael Cupo, who claims
he came up short due to Escala's actions.
Cupo and Lawrence Denike
were cofounders of a Maywood mortgage company and Cupo, who left the
partnership, sued for the payout he claimed was due. On Jan. 20,
2005, after a bench trial, Escala awarded Cupo $731,682 plus
interest. He signed the final order on Feb. 1, 2005, making no
changes. At some point between those dates, Denike's attorney,
Herten, talked with Escala about a job upon his imminent retirement.
On Feb. 3, Escala told his clerks he was joining Herten, Burstein.
Cupo appealed, declining to
pursue post-trial motions as Passaic County, Assignment Judge
Robert Passero had invited. (The case was transferred to Passaic
County after Escala ruled.)
"Why not take all this up
with Judge Passero?" asked Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto.
Keegan said a post-judgment
hearing would have served no purpose. "You can't address the
appearance of impropriety with a factual hearing," he said.
Justice Barry Albin
observed that Keegan was seeking a "complete redo."
"I don't think that's an
extreme remedy," Keegan replied.
Rivera-Soto said it was a
"bit of a stretch" to suggest that Escala made changes beneficial to
Denike just because Escala was negotiating with Herten, Burstein
before signing the order.
Albin interjected, "I don't
know why you have to make that argument. The attorney approached the
judge with a job opportunity before the end of the case. That should
be your argument."
Justice Jaynee LaVecchia
added, "Worse, the judge did not rebuff him."
Herten said Escala's
verdict should stand since nothing changed between the time Escala
reached his decision and the time he formalized it in the final
order.
"Mr. Keegan's argument is
based on speculation. That argument should crumble," he said.
Rivera-Soto told Herten to
"assume the worst-case scenario" and advise what the appropriate
remedy should be.
"There already was a
remedy," said Herten. "Judge Passero said, 'Come back before me. I
will be Judge Escala for all intents and purposes.' Mr. Keegan had
the opportunity and he made a knowing, purposeful and willful waiver
of the opportunity."
Keegan rejected Passero's
offer because he knew any appeal would be more difficult to pursue
if Passero made the same rulings as Escala, said Herten.
Keegan's strategy is to
make the appeal revolve around an appearance of impropriety so the
parties "have to go back to the Book of Genesis," he said.
Rivera-Soto suggested that
may be the course to follow to maintain confidence in the integrity
of the judicial system. "It's what golfers call a Mulligan," he
said. "They [all of Escala's rulings] are bad because they're all
tainted."
Albin applied his own
sporting metaphor: that of a judge sitting on a case and "before the
final bell rings he may be jockeying for a position. We can't permit
that, don't you agree?"
Herten said the Court
should view the case as would a reasonable person who knew all the
facts and looked at Escala's handling of it from beginning to end.
"This was a well-reasoned decision, a process with integrity."
Chief Justice Stuart Rabner
asked whether Herten believed the Court should adopt the ABA model
or place post-retirement restrictions on state judges similar to
those faced by federal judges.
"I don't, frankly, know
what the standard should be," said Herten.
New
Traffic Judge Accused of Hitting Up Bikers for Cash
By Amaris Elliott-Engel
The Legal Intelligencer
New York Lawyer
April 23, 2008
A Philadelphia Traffic Court judge elected just last fall faces
allegations that he solicited campaign donations at a motorcycle
club event in exchange for a promise to help out motorcyclists
appearing in Traffic Court.
The Pennsylvania Judicial
Conduct Board has initiated formal proceedings against Philadelphia
Traffic Court Judge Willie F. Singletary and has filed five counts
of misconduct against Singletary.
According to the notice of
formal charges filed Tuesday by the conduct board in the
Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline, Singletary allegedly
brought the judicial office into disrepute by promising favorable
treatment while soliciting donations from bikers last year at an
event held to raise donations for his campaign and to conduct a
blessing on motorcycles ahead of the warm road season.
Quote Time
"There's going to be a
basket going around because I'm running for Traffic Court Judge,
right, and I need some money. I got some stuff that I got to do, but
if you all can give me twenty ($20) dollars you're going to need me
in Traffic Court, am I right about that?"
0:32
"Now you all want me to get
there, you're all going to need my hook-up, right?"
2:17
"It costs money. I have to
raise $15,000 dollars by Friday, I just hope you have it, because I
have to raise $15,000 dollars by Friday." 2:23
Singletary told the bikers,
among other alleged statements, according to the notice:
"'Now you all want me to
get there, you're all going to need my hook-up, right?'"
Singletary allegedly made
the statement at a "blessing of the bikes" event held April 22,
2007, by the Philadelphia First State Road Rattlers at Malcolm X
Park at 52nd and Pine streets in Philadelphia, the notice said.
"These actions clearly and
unequivocally intimate that in exchange for . . . soliciting funds
that he would grant favorable treatment in court cases," said
Joseph A. Massa Jr., chief counsel of the Judicial Conduct
Board, in an interview. "In doing so, we allege and charge and are
prepared to prove that he brought disrepute to the judicial office
that he now holds."
Massa said the formal
charges Singletary faces are only the second time that his office
has filed charges against a Traffic Court judge.
Singletary's counsel
John W. Morris and Singletary could not be reached for comment
Tuesday.
Traffic Court President
Judge Thomasine Tynes declined comment through an aide until she has
had time to review the situation.
According to the notice, at
the event, Singletary approached a group of people wearing the
motorcycle club colors, offered a blessing and then asked if
"'you're all going to help me out?'"
According to the notice,
Singletary then continued and said: "'There's going to be a basket
going around because I'm running for Traffic Court Judge, right, and
I need some money. I got some stuff that I got to do, but if you all
can give me twenty ($20) dollars you're going to need me in Traffic
Court, am I right about that?'"
Singletary then stated,
according to the notice, "'Now you all want me to get there, you're
all going to need my hook-up, right?'"
In closing, according to
the notice, Singletary said, "'It costs money. I have to raise
$15,000 dollars by Friday, I just hope you have it, because I have
to raise $15,000 dollars by Friday."'
According to a campaign
report filed last year for the period between June 15 and Oct. 22,
Singletary's total monetary contributions were $3,935, his total
expenditures were $3,320 and his unpaid debts and obligations were
$3,110. His expenditures included a $2,000 Democratic City Committee
dinner.
The actions that Singletary
is alleged to have committed in the notice, according to count one
in the notice, violated the Pennsylvania Constitution by bringing
the judicial office into disrepute.
Singletary's alleged
actions also violated the rule prohibiting candidates for
magisterial district judgeships or their equivalents from engaging
in "partisan political activity," including delivering speeches,
making or soliciting "political contributions (including purchasing
tickets for political party dinners or other functions)" or
attending political party gatherings, according to count two in the
notice.
The actions violated the
rule requiring candidates for magisterial district judgeships or
their equivalents to maintain the "dignity appropriate to judicial
office," according to count three of the notice.
According to count four of
the notice, the alleged conduct violated the rule that candidates
for magisterial district judgeships or their equivalents must not
make pledges of their conduct on the bench "other than the faithful
and impartial performance of the duties of the office."
According to count five of
the notice, the alleged conduct violated the rule prohibiting
candidates for magisterial district judgeships or their equivalent
to not personally solicit campaign funds. The rule allows candidates
to "establish committees of responsible persons to secure and manage
the expenditure of funds for their campaign and to obtain public
statements of support for their candidacy," the notice said.
Massa said his office
"received complaints from various sources" regarding the allegations
Singletary faces.
Singletary, who has only
been on the bench since Jan. 7, is considered not guilty of any
infraction until the Court of Judicial Discipline rules that the
conduct board has met its burden of proof with clear and convincing
evidence, Massa said.
The judge will have 30 days
to file a formal omnibus motion response once the complaint is
received. Then Court of Judicial Discipline President Judge
William H. Lamb will appoint a conference judge. After the
pleading stage of the case is completed, a three-judge panel will
conduct a public hearing regarding the charges.
If Singletary is found to
have committed misconduct and violated the "Rules Governing
Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges," as well as the
Pennsylvania Constitution, the court will schedule a sanctions
hearing to determine what sanctions Singletary could possibly face.
The board
receives 550 complaints a year, and formal charges are filed in 1
percent or less of those complaints, Massa said.
NY Lawyers Debate Judge's Ouster
Over Courtroom Meltdown
By Joel Stashenko
New York Law Journal
New York Lawyer
April 23, 2008
ALBANY - Marital
problems and a heavy caseload helped create the "perfect
psychological storm" for a city court judge who began jailing
defendants for not taking responsibility for a ringing cell phone in
his courtroom one day in 2005, his attorney told the state's highest
court yesterday.
Overwork does not excuse Niagara Falls City Court Judge Robert M.
Restaino's tirade, but it helps explain why it happened and should
mitigate against his removal from the bench
, Terrence
M. Connors argued before the Court of Appeals.
"If there is no venal intent, there is no dishonesty or fraud or
efforts to try to improve your own personal gain, then, where you
have an aberration - in this case, an hour and a half - you don't
impose the judicial death penalty on a judge," Mr. Connors argued.
"He has so much more to give. He is regarded so highly."
Judge Restaino failed to recognize the "stressors" in his life that
led to his outburst on March 11, 2005, when the judge ordered 46
defendants in a Domestic Violence Court detained because no one
would own up to having the cell phone, Mr. Connors said. Fourteen
defendants were eventually sent to the Niagara County Jail because
they could not make bail. All the defendants were released by the
end of the day.
Mr. Connors cited Judge Restaino's heavy caseload as one of his
major stressors. The judge typically handled between 100 and 125
cases a day in court and from 1996 to 2006 he was responsible for
some 90,000 cases, his attorney said.
In addition to his full-time assignment to the Niagara Falls City
Court bench, Judge Restaino also accepted temporary assignments as
acting Buffalo City Court judge, acting Niagara County Court judge
and acting Niagara County Family Court judge.
Medical experts who worked with the judge after his outburst also
suggested that working on domestic violence cases raised his
personal anxieties about the growing rift in the judge's own
marriage, according to Mr. Connors.
Mr. Connors told the Court of Appeals that Judge Restaino's case
presents them with an opportunity to address an issue the Court has
never written about: "judicial burnout and stress."
"Judges need to know, just like lawyers need to know, that you can
come forward with these individual stress problems that you have and
that are likely to experience in the type of profession that you're
in," Mr. Connors argued. "You can come forward and you can seek
help. It is not a stigma. It is not a sign of weakness. It is not a
character flaw."
Judge Restaino has undergone counseling and learned to better
recognize and cope with stress, his attorney said.
Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and Judges Robert S. Smith and Susan P.
Read all noted yesterday that heavy dockets are the norm for state
court judges. Judge Read observed that if Judge Restaino is returned
to the bench, "I don't suppose that his caseload is going to get any
lighter."
"We've got to deal with a judge, a very hard-working judge with an
excellent record," Judge Smith said. "Well, we have a lot of very
hard-working judges with excellent records. He [Judge Restaino] went
completely off the rails. He victimized several dozen harmless,
innocent people, or at least innocent of anything that would have
justified his conduct. How can we say to the community, 'Well, we
understand why he did it and he's not going to do it again?'"
Amici Support
Mr. Connors said the 10 amici curiae briefs filed on Judge
Restaino's behalf by bar, civic and government groups in the Niagara
Falls region show the community's confidence that the judge will not
repeat his behavior.
Commission on Judicial Conduct attorney Edward Lindner sought
to downplay the significance of the amici briefs supporting the
judge and urged the Court to give them a "very limited role" inits
deliberations about Judge Restaino's judicial fate.
"They are simply unsworn character references," Mr. Lindner said.
"Well, they're more than that, Mr. Lindner," Chief Judge Kaye
replied. "They are the expressions of people who dealt with him over
an 11-year period or more as a judge."
At another point yesterday, the chief judge remarked that the
"outpouring of support" for Judge Restaino made his appeal unusual.
Mr. Lindner urged the Court to look past the local backing Judge
Restaino enjoys and consider the message about appropriate judicial
conduct it wants to send to the state as a whole with its ruling.
"How are people on Long Island and New York City, how are people in
the Capital District who read your decision going to take this?" Mr.
Lindner asked.
Mr. Lindner argued that Judge Restaino's case is analogous to that
of former Supreme Court Justice Laura D. Blackburne of Queens, who
was removed from the bench in 2006 for helping a robbery suspect
evade arrest. The Commission on Judicial Conduct's removal
recommendation was upheld by the Court in
Matter of Blackburne,
7 NY3d 213 (2006). Mr. Connors, of Connors & Vilardo in
Buffalo, argued that censure is the appropriate sanction for Judge
Restaino, not removal. The judge has an otherwise spotless judicial
record.
The commission voted for removal by a 9-1 margin, finding that Judge
Restaino's behavior "transcended poor judgment" and brought the
judiciary into "disrepute." The former chairman of the commission,
Raoul Felder, disagreed in what he called the most difficult
decision in hisfour years on the panel.
Mr. Felder wrote in a dissent that "two hours of inexplicable
madness" should not cost Judge Restaino his judicial career. He
favored censure.
Judge Restaino was appointed to a part-time city judgeship in
Niagara Falls in 1996 and elected to a 10-year full-time term in
2001. He has been suspended with pay since December as he challenged
the commission's removal recommendation before the Court of Appeals.
Since the inception of the commission in 1983, the Court of Appeals
has upheld 63 of the panel's 72 removal recommendations. The other
nine were reduced to censure, most recently Lockport City Court
Judge William Watson's
recommended removal for
making inappropriate campaign promises to be tougher on criminals
than his predecessor.
Mr. Connors successfully argued for a reduction in sanction for
Judge Watson before the Court.
Judge Claims "Diminished
Capacity" in Judicial Ethics Probe
New York Lawyer
March 13, 2008
GROVE HILL, Ala. (AP) - A Clarke County judge accused in a
wide-ranging judicial ethics complaint claims he suffered from
"diminished capacity" that affected his ability to make rational
decisions.
Circuit Judge Stuart DuBose, who serves Washington, Clarke and
Choctaw counties, could be ousted from office if convicted by the
Court of the Judiciary.
The Judicial Inquiry Commission made 60 separate allegations
against DuBose in January, covering his conduct on the bench and as
a private lawyer before he took office in January 2007. They
included claims that he told lawyers at a party after he won the
Democratic nomination for circuit judge in September 2006 that they
would have a "homefield advantage."
DuBose filed his formal response to the allegations Wednesday. He
has been on paid leave since the complaint was filed. It's unclear
when the commission will rule on the case.
John Wilkerson, the secretary of the Court of the Judiciary, told
the Press-Register he can recall only one similar case in the last
30 years. In that case, a Talladega County judge resigned amid
allegations of impropriety and requested disability payments because
of diminished capacity, Wilkerson said.
DuBose's lawyers denied the charges and claimed he was suffering
from an unspecified diminished capacity during the time covered by
the allegations and the investigation of them.
Farley Moody of Calera, a lawyer representing DuBose, declined to
provide details about his client's condition. DuBose's filing states
that his "treatment and evaluation concerning his health, both
mental and physical, is ongoing."
Among other allegations in the judicial ethics complaint, DuBose
is accused of drafting a will as a private attorney for a wealthy,
dying man, giving the entire estate to a caregiver seeking the will,
without ever meeting the dying man. He also is accused of making
threatening remarks to a group of lawyers in an apparent attempt to
keep them from cooperating with the judicial inquiry commission's
investigation
Panel
Seeks Reprimand for Judge Cheryl Aleman
By Diana Moskovitz and
Hannah Sampson
The Miami Herald
February 5, 2008
A Broward circuit judge should be publicly reprimanded for her
misconduct in a murder case, the state's judicial watchdog has
ruled.
Broward Circuit Judge
Cheryl Alemán also was ordered to pay for the cost of the
proceedings, an amount unknown on Monday.
In February of last year,
the Judicial Qualifications Commission filed ethics charges against
Alemán, saying she had unprofessional courtroom conduct and unfairly
held, or threatened to hold, lawyers in contempt of court.
Ultimately, a commission
panel found her in violation in one case and not guilty in the
second.
The 31-page recommendation
goes to the Florida Supreme Court, which will decide the final
punishment.
Assistant Public Defender
Sandra Perlman, an attorney in the case where the panel faulted
Alemán, said on Monday she was pleased.
''I'm very happy she will
finally be held accountable for her arrogant and discourteous
conduct,'' she said.
Alemán's attorney, David
Bogenschutz, said he would have preferred that she be fully
exonerated. But he said he was grateful that she was found in
violation in just one case and that the panel recommended only a
reprimand -- the least severe punishment -- as opposed to removing
her from the bench.
''It's certainly gratifying
that they think she's the kind of judge that should remain on the
bench,'' Bogenschutz said. ``I happen to think that myself, and I
think a lot of people think that.''
Bogenschutz said he and Alemán
will decide whether to appeal the ruling to the Florida Supreme
Court.
The panel's finding was
related to the 2006 case of a Hollywood man, Lawrence Braynen, who
faced the death penalty in a first-degree murder case. His assistant
public defenders, including Perlman, tried repeatedly to have Alemán
removed from the case.
In one instance, Perlman
asked for at least an hour to prepare a motion. Alemán instead
handed her paper and a pen and gave her 15 minutes. She threatened
to hold Perlman in contempt when she missed the deadline.
The panel called Alemán's
conduct in the Braynen case ``arrogant, discourteous, and impatient
to the lawyers appearing before her.''
''She acted in a manner
that erodes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of
the judiciary,'' the panel continued.
Braynen later went to trial
before a different judge and was convicted.
''We will never know the
answer to whether the pen and paper step would have resulted in the
reversal of a death sentence, but it was a step that should have not
been taken,'' the panel wrote.
However, the panel said it
was ''troubled by the Public Defender's numerous motions for
disqualification,'' but adding that those did not excuse Alemán's
conduct.
Perlman said on Monday that
the motions were a result of Alemán's conduct.
In the second case, the
concern was Alemán's refusal to disqualify herself in criminal cases
involving clients of Fort Lauderdale lawyer Michael Gottlieb, even
though she had disqualified herself from a case of his before due to
their interaction when she was an assistant statewide prosecutor.
The panel found Alemán not
guilty ''due to a lack of clear and convincing evidence,'' the
opinion said
No Stay
of Complaint Proceedings for
Judge Accused of Improper Conduct
The Associated Press
February 4, 2008
The
Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission
has rejected a request from suspended Clark County District Judge
Elizabeth Halverson to stay proceedings on its 14-count complaint
accusing her of improper conduct, sexual harassment and sleeping on
the bench.
Halverson's attorneys also
were told Thursday to respond to a commission subpoena, issued in
October, to turn over documents sought by the discipline panel. The
judge also was given 20 days in which to amend the formal response
to the commission's complaint that she filed on Tuesday.
In the response,
Halverson's lawyers said the accusations should be dismissed because
she has "absolute immunity by virtue of her elected position as a
Nevada district court judge."
The attorneys also said
Halverson is entitled to protections under the
Americans With Disabilities Act,
and some of the counts against her violate the judge's federal
rights "to be free from discrimination based upon an accepted
qualifying disability."
Lawyers Dominic Gentile,
John Arrascada and William Gamage also said the charges don't
include any "allegations of severity or pervasiveness," or show any
"willful or persistent failure to perform the duties of office, or
habitual intemperance."
The attorneys also said the
discipline panel was going beyond its jurisdiction with its
complaint, which alleged, among other things, that Halverson fell
asleep during three trials early last year.
The complaint also says the
judge improperly talked with jurors impaneled to decide a case she
was handling, sexually harassed a bailiff and harassed other
employees, and improperly hired her own security guards.
The complaint also states
that Halverson refused to communicate, except through a lawyer, with
Chief Clark County District Judge Kathy Hardcastle about various
administrative court functions.
I
Object! I Sustain Me!: Local Judge Suspended
for Dual Role as Jurist and Lawyer in Three Cases
By Douglas S. Malan
The Connecticut Law Tribune
New York Lawyer
January 7, 2008
Richard J. Guliani's 16-year term as probate judge for the District
of Portland included his handling three cases in which he served not
only as judge but also as attorney. This conflict of interest earned
Guliani a six-month suspension from practicing law, starting Dec. 10
and running through June 5.
Guliani admitted wrongdoing
in August, nearly one year after he had served a 30-day suspension
for failing to communicate with a client regarding an irrevocable
trust worth more than $100,000.
His term as probate judge
ended in January 2007 after he declined to seek re-election.
Judge James J. Lawlor, the
state's probate court administrator, filed the grievance after
Guliani's successor in Portland, Stephen E. Kinsella, discovered
Guliani's unethical behavior when reviewing a matter involving the
late Vincent W. Olson's estate, which remains open.
"It was a huge
disappointment to me," Lawlor said. "We still have outstanding
issues" because of Guliani's misconduct.
Kinsella found that in
1998, Guliani represented Olson's daughter, Shirley, who was
executrix of the estate. Guliani granted the daughter real estate
from her father's will without "a finding that it was in the best
interests of the parties" involved, according to the
determination of probable cause
by the Middletown Judicial District grievance panel.
In the Olson case, Guliani
ruled that his $15,000 in legal fees were "presumptively
reasonable."
He based the figure on a
fee schedule that stated the reasonable fee for the work he
performed "would be an amount not more than 4.5 percent of the gross
taxable estate."
"This schedule is used by
some Probate Courts to determine if fiduciary and legal fees claimed
in an estate are reasonable and not subject to further question or
inquiry by a Probate Court," he explained to Olson in
a November 1998 letter.
The local grievance panel
also determined that Guliani used the probate court office for his
own private practice. Letterhead for Guliani's law firm that he used
in correspondence with Olson includes a telephone and fax number
that connects to the probate court offices in Portland.
Lawlor also charged, and
the grievance panel confirmed, that Guliani involved himself in two
other files as both attorney and judge. These included an estate for
which he improperly rescinded an admission of the will to probate
and an estate for which he served as witness to a will and had a
claim filed for $650 in legal services.
Guliani, who was admitted
to the bar in 1977, did not respond to a message left on his
answering machine seeking comment.
His disciplinary history
includes three reprimands in 2004 for failing to pay fees associated
with real estate closings and failing to respond to a grievance.
Guliani did not respond to
Lawlor's complaint but did sign his name last August to the
presentment order that led to his suspension.
Lawlor said recent
legislation has empowered his office to remove cases to other judges
if he determines it necessary, though he does not have the power to
sanction judges.
"We have more ability to
intercede and ensure that services are being delivered properly,"
Lawlor said.
Portland attorney George A.
Law was appointed trustee for Guliani's clients. He filed a motion
in late December asking the court for guidance in handling the
matter because Guliani has failed to communicate or cooperate with
him.
Federal
Judge Should Be Impeached, Peers Says
By Janet McConnaughey
The Associated Press
New York Lawyer
December 21, 2007
There is evidence to back up impeaching a federal judge in New
Orleans for lying in bankruptcy court, accepting gifts from lawyers
with cases before him, and other misconduct, a federal judicial
council said Thursday.
The Judicial Council of the
5th U.S. Circuit said U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.
"has engaged in conduct which might constitute one or more grounds
for impeachment."
The same group of judges
said it will wait at least three months before deciding whether to
reconsider allegations that U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent of Texas
harassed a female employee, groping her in his court chambers in
Galveston.
Its report goes to the
federal Judicial Council headed by Chief Justice John Roberts, which
will decide whether to recommend that the U.S. House consider
impeaching Porteous.
Porteous, 61, was in a
meeting Thursday afternoon and not available for comment, his office
said. His attorney, Kyle Schonekas, did not immediately return a
call.
"Impeachment of a federal
judge is very rare in American history. Not that he's necessarily
going to be impeached," said Richard Carelli, spokesman for the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
The U.S. House has
impeached 13 judges; the Senate convicted seven and an eighth
resigned, according to the Federal Judicial Center's web site.
The most recent
convictions, in 1989, were of U.S. District Judges Alcee L. Hastings
of Florida and Walter L. Nixon of Mississippi. Hastings was
convicted of perjury and conspiring to solicit a bribe; Nixon of
lying to a federal grand jury.
The council, which did not
describe the allegations, reprimanded Porteous in September,
ordering him on leave for four months. Thursday's order said the
employee asked it to reconsider possible impeachment and said she
had additional evidence.
That would require a
hearing which would be inappropriate because the U.S. Justice
Department is investigating the allegations, the council wrote.
The 5th Circuit Council's
report about Porteous, posted on the Web site of the 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, said investigators have substantial
evidence to back up allegations against Porteous, who filed for
bankruptcy in 2001.
It said those include:
• Filing
"numerous false statements under oath during his and his wife's
Chapter 13 bankruptcy, including filing the petition under a false
name."
• Hiding assets from the bankruptcy estate.
• Failing to list all creditors.
• Leaving gambling losses off the list of debts.• Getting short-term
credit from casinos after the bankruptcy judge ordered him to get
approval of the court or a trustee before taking on any debt.
• Making unauthorized, secret payments to "preferred creditors"
after going to bankruptcy court.
• Fraud involving a pre-bankruptcy debt to Regions Bank.
• Taking "gifts and things of value" from lawyers with cases before
him.
• Rejecting a request to step down from a case without revealing
that he had a "history of financial relationships" with at least one
attorney for the person making that request.
• Leaving attorneys' gifts off of financial disclosure statements
for 1994-2000, and omitting debt that should have been on the 2000
statement.
The report said U.S.
District Court may not assign Porteous any bankruptcy cases or
appeals, or cases in which the United States is a party. He may
continue with other civil cases and administrative duties until he
has to spend most of his time on his defense, it said.
The allegations against
Porteous were uncovered during the FBI's Operation Wrinkled Robe, an
investigation of the relationship between state judges in Jefferson
Parish, La., where Porteous served until he was appointed a federal
judge in 1994, and bail bondsman Louis Marcotte.
Schonekas said in late May
of this year that federal prosecutors had told him they did not
intend to indict Porteous, who was then asked to return to work at
the court.
Thursday's order will have
little effect on Porteous' caseload.
He stepped aside from all
civil cases involving the federal government and all criminal cases
in 2003 after a relative of Marcotte said the bondsman -- sent to
prison for racketeering -- had paid for Porteous' car repairs and
arranged another favor.
"He hasn't been in the
federal government docket for some time, so the only impact is the
order requires he be taken out of the bankruptcy appeals," said
Chief Judge Helen G. Berrigan of Louisiana's eastern federal
district. "He'll have a regular civil docket, which is the vast
majority of the docket."
In May 2006, while dealing
with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and his wife's death,
Porteous took medical leave. He returned to the federal bench in
June.
Porteous lost the roof of
his Metairie home to Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. His wife,
Carmella, died of a heart attack in December of that year.
"I think it's a very sad
time for him and his family and for us and our court," Berrigan
said. "I consider him a friend and I hope it turns out well for
him."
Federal
Judge Lawyers Up, Requests Meeting
With FBI Over Sexual Harassment Allegations
By John Council and Brenda
Sapino Jeffreys
Texas Lawyer
New York Lawyer
December 12, 2007
U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent — who has hired Houston
criminal-defense lawyer Dick DeGuerin — met with Federal Bureau of
Investigation agents on Nov. 30 to discuss allegations that he
sexually harassed a court employee.
On Sept. 28, the 5th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judicial Council issued an order
reprimanding and admonishing Kent in connection with a May complaint
filed by Cathy McBroom, a former case manager for the judge.
DeGuerin, a partner in
Houston's DeGuerin Dickson & Hennessy who was retained by Kent on
Nov. 26, says he has read the undisclosed findings of the Judicial
Council and of a 5th Circuit Special Investigatory Committee that
looked into McBroom's complaint against Kent.
"What the panel and the
judicial council found was there was not enough evidence to rise to
probable cause that a crime had been committed," says DeGuerin who
adds that he is not quoting or paraphrasing the findings. "Had there
been probable cause, they would have been obligated to turn that
over and authorize a prosecution. But what they considered was
evidence and sworn testimony from all sides — the major issues being
the credibility and motives of the complainant."
DeGuerin declines to
comment specifically on McBroom's allegations.
"Sexual harassment in the
workplace can take many forms. Many don't rise to the level of a
crime," DeGuerin says. "As an example, inappropriate comments, jokes
with sexual overtones and even a pat on the shoulder could be
considered sexual harassment."
DeGuerin says Kent, on his
own, "solicited the interview" with the FBI, answered all of the
agents' questions and agreed to further interviews if requested.
DeGuerin says he did not sit in on Kent's interview with the FBI.
"Of course the FBI agents
don't let on what they're thinking when they interview witnesses,"
DeGuerin says. "But he felt like they asked all of the right
questions.
"I think if they interview
the same people that the 5th Circuit interviewed, they'll come to
the same conclusion they did — that there wasn't any crime."
A U.S. Department of
Justice spokesman and Galveston County Criminal District Attorney
Kurt Sistrunk did not immediately return telephone calls seeking
comment.
Rusty Hardin, a partner in
Houston's Rusty Hardin & Associates who represents McBroom,
disagrees with DeGuerin's contentions.
"You can say I laughed when
I heard that," Hardin says. "There was much more than probable
cause, and in my view, there's much more than necessary for an
indictment."
"The short answer is stay
tuned," Hardin says.
In August, Chief U.S.
District Judge Hayden W. Head Jr. of the Southern District of Texas
signed an order noting that Kent would be absent from the bench from
Sept. 1, 2007, to Jan. 1, 2008, and that U.S. District Judge John
Rainey of Houston would take over Kent's portion of the Galveston
docket.
Edith Jones, chief judge of
the 5th Circuit — which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi —
wrote in the Sept. 28 order reprimanding Kent that a Special
Investigatory Committee appointed to investigate McBroom's complaint
had expanded the original complaint under Rule 9(A) of the 5th
Circuit Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or
Disability. The committee investigated other "instances of alleged
inappropriate behavior toward other employees of the federal
judicial system." The committee recommended that Kent be reprimanded
"along with the accomplishment of other remedial courses of action,"
and by a majority vote the Judicial Council accepted the
recommendations.
The council concluded the
proceedings "because appropriate remedial action had been and will
be taken, including but not limited to the judge's four-month leave
of absence from the bench, reallocation of the Galveston/Houston
docket and other measures," wrote Jones, who signed the order.
In October, an executive
session of the judges of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District decided to transfer Kent's Galveston Division to the
Houston Division. Kent, a judge in the Southern District of Texas
since 1990, will receive civil cases in the Houston division when he
returns to the bench.
McBroom filed a motion last
month with the Judicial Council asking it to reconsider its decision
not to refer her complaint to the Judicial Conference of the United
States. The Judicial Conference, which is comprised of federal
judges from all of the circuits, could refer the Kent matter to the
House Judiciary Committee to initiate impeachment proceedings, among
other options, which is what McBroom wants.
A person close to Kent's
disciplinary matter who requested anonymity told Texas Lawyer last
month that the Judicial Council was considering whether to honor a
subpoena from the DOJ asking for transcripts and documents related
to Kent's disciplinary action.
The Judicial Council's vote
to issue the September order admonishing Kent was not unanimous;
some of the judges believed the punishment was not harsh enough and
that the order did not adequately describe Kent's alleged conduct,
according to the person close to the Kent matter.
While McBroom's initial
complaint filed with the Judicial Council contained "vague"
allegations of sexual harassment, some judges on the council became
alarmed after reading about more serious allegations relayed by
McBroom's family and friends in a Houston Chronicle article after
the Judicial Council released its September disciplinary order,
according to the person close to Kent's disciplinary matter. "The
more serious allegations that have come out in the press, [Judicial
Council] members have said, ‘I don't remember that,' " said the
person close to Kent's disciplinary matter.
According to the Chronicle
article, Kent asked McBroom to come into his chambers for a hug, and
when she was there, he allegedly pulled up her shirt and bra,
touched her breast with his mouth and pushed her head toward his
crotch. The alleged incident was interrupted when another staff
member approached the room, the article noted.
Hardin says he doesn't know
what information the Judicial Council had, but McBroom was "fully
interviewed."
Last month, Hardin said the
characterization of Kent's actions as "sexual harassment" is a
"totally inappropriate term. It's worse than that."
DeGuerin says Kent retained
him after Hardin told several newspapers, including Texas Lawyer,
that McBroom wants the DOJ to consider criminal charges against
Kent.
Hardin said last month,
"Our position is we want a criminal investigation by the Department
of Justice — I think there will be. . . ."
Hardin also said he expects
the DOJ to consider several criminal statutes in its investigation,
specifically 18 U.S.C. §2241(a)(1), which is a charge of attempted
aggravated sexual abuse, and §§2244(a)(1) and 2244(b), which are
under the heading of abusive sexual contact.
Notes DeGuerin, "When Rusty
Hardin became involved and started saying a crime had been committed
. . . it became obvious that he [Kent] needed some advice about
that."
Judge
Refuses Recusal Over
Associate Son's Job at Accused Firm
By Anthony Lin
New York Law Journal
New York Lawyer
November 29, 2007
A New York judge has
declined to recuse himself from a case in which evidence spoliation
allegations have been made against the law firm where his son works
as an associate.
The recusal motion against
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Herman Cahn arose in a compensation
dispute between two former hedge fund partners, in which the
defendant is represented by Greenberg Traurig partner Leslie D.
Corwin. The plaintiff has accused Mr. Corwin of helping his client
cover up the destruction of a key document in the case.
The judge's son Samuel, a
2005 graduate of New York University School of Law, joined Greenberg
Traurig as a corporate associate last year. But Justice Cahn ruled
in a Nov. 19 decision that this family connection to the firm was
insufficient grounds for him to recuse himself. The judge said such
a step would be necessary only if his son would be "substantially
affected" by the case.
"While young associates are
a vital part of the structure of large firms, they do not normally,
at this point in their careers, have a substantial stake in the
cases and clients that the law firms represent," he said in
Melcher v. Apollo Medical Fund, 604047/03.
Though the judge noted it
was reasonable to assume that junior associates cared about their
firm's reputation, he said that the instant case did "not rise to
the level of affecting Greenberg Traurig on such a grand scale that
it would have any significant impact on its associates."
The judge also noted that
he had overseen the case for four years and had promptly informed
the parties at the time that his son had accepted an offer to join
Greenberg Traurig. He pointed out that both parties agreed then that
he should continue with the case.
|