Lessons from Poor Behavior

I take the opportunity here periodically to highlight the importance of the judicial role. Those who are entrusted with the critical decisions and outcomes have a serious duty to the system, the public, and themselves. Recently, an anonymous (momentarily) judge was reprimanded by the Eleventh Circuit, and the story is of import to every judge.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals was established by separating Alabama, Florida, and Georgia from the Fifth Circuit in 1980, according to the Federal Judicial Center. Justia says that there are 14 Federal District Judges in Alabama, 18 in Georgia, and there are 18 in Florida, according to the District Court page (excluding senior judges). 

Of the three states, only two have "district attorneys," Alabama and Georgia. Florida has "state attorneys" instead. That fact may or may not be important to this story of judicial behavior. 

In February 2026, the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit entered a "CONFIDENTIAL" order regarding Judicial Complaint No. 11-25-90212. In late May 2026, it was widely shared on social media platforms; some comments there have been critical of the judge and the judiciary generally. The order is also available on the Circuit Court's website. After its publication, there was curiosity and perhaps conjecture that may have cast a shadow on all 50 district judges in the Circuit.

As if social media were not pervasive enough, the story caught the attention of Bloomberg, CNBC, HuffPost, Reuters, FoxNews, New York Post, Yahoo, Reason, Above the Law, Associated Press, the Hindustan Times (India), Inkl (Australia), Marca (Spain), and more. Some have even stooped to involving the judge's family (citation omitted). A Wikipedia page regarding the judge has already been updated to include details of the Order and outcome. Some are mentioning potential further proceedings, and others are encouraging House of Representatives action. 

The order imposes a "private reprimand" on a federal district court judge that centers on allegations of behavior both in and out of the office. Some of its factual conclusions and allegations are somewhat salacious and not worthy of repetition here (click links above if interested). 

It is likely, however, that those salacious points are what drove the now-international news coverage, and that they will remain a point of reference for the remainder of a career (and perhaps the careers of others; multiple court employees were pulled into the investigation as innocent victims/witnesses of the poor judicial temperament and decisions). 

It is troubling that someone's grandchildren may one day read the stories, tweets, and other commentary about their behavior. Some of the social media is accompanied by images seemingly created with artificial intelligence, and there are references there that some would find simply vulgar. One wonders if social media posters realize the potential impact on people's families, friends, and associates.

The order is, however, a rare glimpse into the judicial discipline process of the federal courts. There were allegations brought to the attention of the chief judge in one of the districts, which were then relayed to the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit. 

The allegations were communicated, "promptly denied" by the district judge, and then reduced to a formal "complaint of judicial misconduct" and referred to an "appointed ... special committee to investigate the complaint." There were witness interviews, some inspection of premises, and later the "Subject Judge recanted the initial denial and admitted" to some of the alleged behavior.

The allegations involved judicial supervision of clerk's work (remember Just Delete it, October 2025), judicial demeanor in the role of supervisor, attendance at a political event, and involvement in a personal and salacious intimate relationship in the judge's chambers during work hours. 

The political event was for a "District Attorney," immediately suggesting the probability that these allegations were not related to Florida (though it is common for many to refer to prosecutors generically as "district attorney," which is not seemingly as prevalent in Florida, even as a shorthand or convenience). Thus, for many, the initial shadow was cast more over Alabama and Georgia judges. 

The Chief Judge's order provides significant detail regarding the investigation. It carefully does not identify the judge, the complainant, or the witnesses by name. There is sufficient description of one person, a police officer, to perhaps allow people the officer is acquainted with to identify them. The purpose of striving for anonymity is patent, particularly in protecting those who raised concerns and provided testimony (the innocent clerks who are victims in all of this). 

But the news media promptly identified the judge as Eleanor Ross and the police officer as Kelley Collier. Those are their conclusions, and as yet, neither of these has been proven to be involved. Nonetheless, no public denial has been found either. 

Judge Ross was appointed by President Obama in 2013 and has more than a dozen years of experience on the federal bench. She has been a member of the Bar since 1994, thus has more than 30 years of experience with the law and the integrity requirements it espouses. She knows better than to lie to a superior; she knows the implications of workplace misbehavior, and she knows her responsibilities to her employees, the court, and the judicial system.

Though the Eleventh Circuit order was confidential, the judge's identity was discerned by Bloomberg and others using stated facts such as the date of the probable political event mentioned in the Judge's order. It noted that Judge Ross "is the only active district judge within the Eleventh Circuit who previously worked for a district attorney’s office that had a contested primary election" in that time frame. The reporters also tied another allegation to Judge Ross, using "An archived version of Ross’s calendar during that period of time" as confirmation that she is the judge involved.

The identity of the police officer was similarly discerned through information on "Collier’s biography on the police department’s website and his now-deleted LinkedIn profile," according to Bloomberg. It does not appear that the identifications of the judge and police officer required significant effort in the age of electronic data. 

Ultimately, the order concludes that the judge "engaged in three instances of judicial misconduct." These include the salacious behavior, "making false statements to Chief Judge Pryor and to the Chief District Judge that were material to the investigation," and attending the political event. The Chief Judge concluded that some actions "demonstrated a gross lack of judgment."

He noted that the alleged activities were distracting to court personnel and that the judge's role includes providing "the best working environment possible.” Moreover, he noted that the judge's duty in this regard, the work environment, extends to both workers and the court itself. 

The order concludes that the attendance at a political event "appears to be a one-time lapse in judgment and not part of a larger pattern of improper participation in partisan politics." It acknowledged that the attendance "did not garner media attention" but "had the potential to erode public confidence in the independent and non-partisan nature of the judiciary." 

It proceeds to address the "Judge’s making false statements," concluding that this "violated Rule 4(a)(5) of the Judicial-Conduct Rules." And, importantly, the order reminds that "the Judicial-Conduct Rules impose upon the Subject Judge a duty to report the judge’s own misconduct," which did not occur here. Thus, there was concealment, and "the judge’s false statements to Chief Judge Pryor and to the Chief District Judge constituted attempts to prevent the chief judges from learning of the Subject Judge’s misconduct."

Ultimately, however, the order also acknowledges the judge's "otherwise exemplary service to the court." It acknowledges that the investigators were "troubled by the conduct," but that the "Judge has demonstrated a strong propensity for rehabilitation and continued diligent service." No specific details of that service or propensity are stated in support of these conclusions.

This order will likely continue to attract attention on social media and in the news. We will never know whether the news media would have been as interested without the salacious details. But the lessons that can be learned are worthy of acknowledgement by any and all who serve. 

First, the judge has adjudicator duties, but, as importantly, is responsible for cultivating and providing a safe and appropriate work environment for all. This is an imperative on a personal and institutional level. Every public servant should be conscious of that and focused on the environment and the team they supervise. 

Second, there is an imperative for truth in the investigation of such allegations. Misrepresentation simply has no appropriate place or purpose. A judge will regularly see to the administration of oaths. Witnesses in proceedings will be expected to testify truthfully. Those who don't will be held to account, which may include criminal prosecution. Judges who oversee such oaths should be exemplars of truth and respect for process. Judges simply should not lie. That is an easy lesson and admonition.

Third, the judicial role is highly visible. Notably, this judge's attendance at the political event "did not garner media attention," but it "had the potential to erode public confidence" in judges. One might argue that the "private reprimand" has itself has indeed attracted media attention, and many articles have now featured both the salacious and the allegation of being an untruthful judge; some of the social media coverage has been worse. There may be issues of eroded confidence now. 

Does this example and publicity impugn a judge, a court, or a legal system? Does this erode public confidence? Is the erosion only to the judge's reputation or to the courts generally? Now that the judge's identity has been alleged by the news media, what will the impact(s) be on the witnesses who are mentioned but likewise not named in the order (various clerks)? Will their identities become the media's interest? Will their careers suffer by association with this situation or their role in reporting or substantiating it?

One final point is interesting. Some have notably taken issue with what they perceive as a lenient response to the judge's actions. As a sanction, the reprimand ordered the judge to never serve as chief judge (should the opportunity arise), to write apology letters to the clerks who served in the judge's chambers, and to refrain from service on a judicial committee. 

The reprimand notably describes that:

"The Subject Judge asked to be allowed to word the letters of apology vaguely so as to ensure that a letter could not be 'used against [the Subject Judge] in some way.'”

With the broad news coverage and social media discussion of the investigation and reprimand, it seems unlikely that any aspect of public discussion will ever center on the wording of the apology letters. Nonetheless, that such issues of "vague" wording arose is perhaps interesting in itself. Having been clearly wrong, there seems to have been a continuing interest in clouding or obscuring how responsibility was taken and the apology communicated. 

All of that said, if the press has misidentified the Subject Judge, it is hoped that it will be rapidly corrected for the sake of both Judge Ross and Chief Collier. Those who had the fortitude to report and substantiate the poor judicial behavior are to be commended, whoever they may be. 

The public should be encouraged to view this situation not as a reflection of the judicial system or the federal district courts, but as aberrant failures of one public servant and as proof positive that everyone is capable of making mistakes.