Bad behavior is not endemic. Bad judges come in a variety of jurisdictions, localities, and backgrounds. It is worthwhile to reflect on their decisions, as we can all learn from the mistakes of others. See Eleanor Roosevelt. We really do not have time in our lives to make all the mistakes ourselves. I have written about several judges over the years. See Judicial Timekeeping (April 2021); The Code of Judicial Conduct and Scouting (March 2015); Why Do We Recuse (December 2019); and Judicial Ethics and "The Great Pumpkin" (June 2017).
An interesting Judicial discipline case from Alabama made the national news recently, with a mention on Yahoo News, the Daily Mail, BET, and more. The Judge is Nakita Blocton, a Circuit Judge in Birmingham, Alabama since 2017. Earlier in 2021, the Judge "left office in February 2021," and a complaint was filed regarding some alleged statements and actions of the judge. The coverage admittedly all leaves us asking why a complaint, vote, and written opinion if she already left office, but I digress. The Alabama Court of the Judiciary is charged with hearing such complaints, and its nine members convened on December 7, 2021, to consider the complaint.
The Judge was accused of "engaging in a pattern of ex parte communications with litigants and attorneys appearing before her," as well as "a pattern of making other inappropriate communications to staff, lawyers, and litigants." Second, she was accused of "engaging in a pattern of abuse of staff and a pattern of abuse, bias and favoritism towards attorneys and litigants. Third, the Judge was accused of "failing to avoid an appearance of bias, favoritism, and retaliation towards attorney's and litigants. Fourth, she was accused of "engaging in and/or displaying inappropriate demeanor and indecorous behavior." Fifth, she was accused of "failing to promptly dispose of the business of the Court." She was also accused of "engaging in an appearance of drug use and mental instability." Finally, count 7 alleged she "engag(ed) in a pattern of dishonesty and deception.
As to various accusations, the Court noted relevance of various canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including: 1, 2, 2.A, 2.B, 3, 3.A(2), 3.A(3), 3.A(4), 3.A(5), 3.B(2), and 3.C(1)(a). The Court concluded that she had not been proven to have "engag(ed) in an appearance of drug use and mental instability," nor to have made an improper campaign contribution in a mayoral election.
However, the Court concluded that clear and convincing evidence did support that she "engaged in ex parte communications and that she engaged in a pattern and practice of making inappropriate comments." This included referring to fellow judges as "Uncle Tom" and other derogatory terms, as well as "calling an employee a 'heifer.'" According to the complaint filed in May 2021, these comments included reference to another judge as "the devil," and one as "the biggest smiling sellout." Multiple messages included other derogatory terms not worthy of quoting. In addition, another employee was "verbally abused and belittled."
According to the complaint filed in May 2021, the ex parte communication allegedly included "telling one attorney how to 'fix her filing' and how judge Blocton would rule if a motion to stay was filed." in late 2020, an attorney allegedly contacted the Judge's staff to inquire about the status of an order then pending for over a year. The staff, "M.T.S.," told the Judge of the call, allegedly leading the Judge to call the attorney, conversing for almost two hours, and to "rudely and disrespectfully" speak to the attorney, which "reduced the attorney to tears." The Judge allegedly "demanded that the attorney plead for M.T.S. to keep her job" during this conversation.
After the investigation in to Judge Blocton began, she allegedly "ordered employees to allow her to see their private cellphones," and sought to delete information on them relevant to the investigation. The complaint filed in May 2021 alleges that the judge "snatched" one employee's phone from her/his hands, and "took" another employee's cell phone. The Court concluded that she forced staff to work "unreasonable hours," "late nights, and weekends." The complaint filed in May also alleges that she forced staff to consume a diet medication to "'pep' them up after having worked late the evening before." This was perceived as intimidating employees.
The Judge was found to have used "Facebook aliases to communicate with litigants in a pending domestic-relations case." This was seen by the Court as "a pattern of dishonesty and deception." The point of that communication was to "affect the outcome of the case." Further, that the Judge "failed to promptly dispose of many of the cases assigned," and was "unable to effectively remedy her backlog of cases."
The Court concluded that the behavior violated: canons 1, 2.A, 2.B, 3.A(2), 3.A(3), 3.A(4), 3.A(5), and 3.B(2). It therefore ordered that she be "hereby removed from the office of Circuit Judge of Jefferson County effective immediately."
As interesting as this judicial conduct decision is, It shares the stage with another case focused largely on things said aloud. The Alabama Court of the Judiciary entered a final judgment in the matter of John Randall Jinks on October 29, 2021, as regards a complaint filed in March 2021. This judge has been in office since 2019, as a probate judge. These centered on allegations by some employees regarding his "treatment of women, what they regarded as racist behavior, his use of inappropriate language, and his behavior while in the office."
The allegations in the first count include "engaging in and/or displaying the inappropriate demeanor," including
"engaging in and displaying racially insensitive demeanor, sexually inappropriate demeanor, other inappropriate demeanor about women, inappropriate expression of anger, use of and allowance of profanity, and/or other conduct unbefitting the judicial office."
The Court concluded that the judge "violated Canons 1, 2.A,4 2.B, and 3.A.(3) by displaying racist conduct." The Court referenced an instance of asking an attorney for "an acronym for a racial epithet involving the 'N word,'" a statement to a worker who had just purchased a new car in which he questioned "if he was a drug dealer," and some remarks about "the violence and burning in which reference was also made to an election." Multiple instances of unfortunate language were included in the Court's order. The Court noted that "although the complaint alleges 'racially insensitive demeanor,' this Court is of the opinion that Judge Jinks' conduct rose above racial insensitivity."
The Court was convinced that the Commission "proved by clear and convincing evidence" all three of the counts. It concluded that the judge violated Canons 1, 2.A,4 2.B, 2C, and 3.A.(3). The Court removed the judge from office, but an appeal has been filed.
The lesson(s) from the two cases are fairly simple. The primary is that words are critical, and perhaps more so in the twenty-first century. Judges must remain aware of the verbiage they choose and should avoid insulting anyone. Staff are a critical part of the judicial process and they deserve respect, dignity, and care. Judge or not, everyone must remain aware of the impact that words may have on those who happen to overhear. It is not just the effect on the intended recipient that matters.
The state's premises are for business, and the hiring of state employees should remain arms-length, focused on the delivery of competent and timely public service. The lessons on ex parte are barely worth mentioning. Judges should not communicate with the parties in a case in that manner. And, using fake social media accounts to do so somewhat signals recognition that it is inappropriate.
Finally, judges must refrain from lending the prestige of office to others. This includes recommendation letters, calls to other judges, and more. Being entrusted with this title and its tasks is an honor. That honor is tarnished by the misuse of that prestige for the advancement of the interests of friends and acquaintances; it is simply and appropriately forbidden. That is worthy of recollection and consideration any time a judge receives a request for a favor, an intervention, or other assistance.
