|
Foul-Mouthed Judge Disciplined for Harangues From Bench By Michael Booth 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 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 - 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 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, By Pamela A. MacLean 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 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 New York Lawyer 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" By The Associated Press 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 By Shannon McCaffrey 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 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 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 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 Coastal Post 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." Judge Disciplined for Ruling in Cases of Hubby's Bank New York Lawyer 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 By Michael Booth 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 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. By Joel Stashenko 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. "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 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 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 The Associated Press 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 By Douglas S. Malan 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 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." 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 By John Council and Brenda
Sapino Jeffreys 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 By Anthony Lin 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. |
