An intriguing story started last November when a Douglas County Probate Court Judge was before a Judicial Qualifications Commission in Georgia. The whole story is reported in detail on Law.com. Fox5 Atlanta reported last summer that she faced "40 allegations of alleged judicial misconduct," after ten others had been dropped by the Commission because "some did take place before...her candidacy."
The trial of the judge went on for days. That in itself is not necessarily common. I have been following judicial discipline decisions for decades, and it is far more likely for a judge to admit error, seek mercy, and move on. But, there is no reason for a judge to do so if he or she believes there are insufficient grounds. Fighting for what is right is admirable.
The judge testified at some length regarding the allegations. The Commission concluded that her "attempts to avoid responsibility for these clear violations bordered on farcical, severely erroding her credibility." Credibility is critical in any witness. Stick to the facts, be consistent, and your odds increase.
One complaint had to do with disregarding courthouse security. That incident resulted in revocation of the judge's "after-hours" access to the courthouse. There were allegations in the defense that the accused judge had been subjected to "a contentious judicial atmosphere" and that there was "discord between judges" that led to some "snarky" correspondence from the accused judge. She apparently questioned a colleague "How are you a judge?"
Judge Peterson testified that she believed she was treated unfairly. She perceived that she "was, in essence, convicted guilty (in the investigation process) until proven innocent.” Commission members expressed perceptions of discord. There were allegations that the Judge's testimony about her correspondence was "confused" and that “the evidence [didn't] line up with the testimony.”
The prosecution highlighted education that had been provided about the Code of Judicial Conduct. There was emphasis that the judge had been provided a mentor "at least for the first year of...judgeship." Other witnesses attested to Judge Peterson's intellect and her adherence to process. In short, there were witnesses both for and against.
There was emphasis on her ex-parte communication with "her HOA" in an attempt "to settle a lawsuit she had filed...though she knew the HOA was represented by an attorney." It is undeniable that the Code of Judicial Conduct precludes ex parte communication (though perhaps not in this context), but so do the Rules of Professional Conduct that apply to all lawyers (including those appointed/elected to the bench). There are rules about speaking to represented parties. Every lawyer knows them. Every judge knows them.
The news report notes the contempt decision, which the Commission characterized as "a hasty and sickeningly disproportionate reaction." That involved a lady who wanted to correct a public document. She was sentenced to two weeks in jail for contempt and served two days. The contempt charge appears to have been viewed by the commission as untoward and unnecessary.
Contempt is an incredible power that must be used very sparingly and respected. Too many constitutional judges joke about contempt. Too many judges have been quick to employ it. It is powerful and therefore requires great restraint and respect - from those it threatens and those who have the power to employ it. It is not for simple instances of mistake, lost patience, or frustration.
There were allegations about social media use by the judge. The argument was raised that “actions taken outside a judicial capacity can warrant discipline only when taken in bad faith.” The judge argued that in the absence of evidence of "bad faith," the commission should dismiss the social media allegation. But, there are significant constraints on judicial comments and statements. That they are made off the bench or on social media does not change that.
When the prosecution rested, the judge's attorney moved "for directed verdict," a decision by the commission that the case had not been proven. It was denied. Just to be sure, the judge's other attorney "move(d) for directed verdict on all counts contained in the JQC’s complaint." The case nonetheless moved on to the defense's witnesses and evidence.
The prosecution sought sanctions to limit harm to the public and the court. They suggested training, and supervision by other judges in any situation where contempt was discussed. The defense argued:
"There’s no judge in the history of American jurisprudence that had 50 counts [of ethics violations] and yet we stand here today, after two attempts to remove her from the bench, and 20 or more of those 50 counts have been dismissed or withdrawn by the Judicial Qualifications Commission.”
Essentially, that argument is that if a prosecutor chooses not to pursue all the charges it must equate to innocence. Prosecutors elect to forego millions of charges in the U.S. every day. That equates to efficiency and prosecutorial discretion. It does not equate to innocence in each instance, though that decision might the subject of such an argument.
Thus, the lawyer argued “This is not a judge, that, in my view, even comes close to somebody that you would remove from the bench.” But, the Commission disagreed.
One might find it curious that 50 charges were perceived by the defense as grounds to conclude that the judge should not be disciplined. The unprecedented "50 counts" may seem to some an indicator of problems. To others, perhaps it signals unwarranted persecution. Certainly, there is not fire whenever there is smoke, but as the volume of smoke rises the search for fire will likely intensify.
Fox 5 Atlanta reported April 1, 2024 that Judge Christina Peterson has been found "guilty of systemic incompetence" and that "she must go." The recommendation of the Commission was reportedly unanimous. Its conclusions were founded on "ignor(ing" courthouse rules, abuse() of courthouse personnel...inappropriate posts on social media," and failure to perform the job.
There are some who excel at "the judging business" and others not so much. When allegations of wrongdoing arise, they must be investigated and conclusions must ultimately be reached. The lessons for judges are clear. Treat people with respect, check your black robes disease at the door, remember that you are a judge 24/7, and remain vigilant with your social media (like this blog post).
