The Oregonian reported in April on a judge who expressed that she was too busy to do her job. Judge Adrian Brown was first elected to the circuit bench in 2020 and was running for re-election. She is a 2000 graduate of Lewis and Clark Law School. She complained she was "too busy on the campaign trail" to "oversee any trials."
The judge has reached out to the other judges, asking them to "take on her long-planned rotation staffing misdemeanor domestic violence trials this month." She explains that she did not plan on being so busy with her re-election and "would not wish this on any of us."
The Willamette Week ran the story, adding Judge Brown's observation that handling the trials and campaigning would be impossible. The "presiding judge" responded to her group message, reminding her that judges are obligated to do their jobs. She wrote:
“I would like to remind everyone that we, as public officials, must be ready and willing to do our jobs every day unless on vacation or out on sick leave.”
She added that campaigning is for "outside of work hours."
Judge Brown's perceived predicament stems from her anticipation of running unopposed. As a result, seemingly, she did not plan in advance to have leave time available for campaigning. In her initial plea for relief, she noted that an opposition candidate had filed a mere "30 minutes before the deadline," upending her perceptions and plans.
The Willamette Week report concludes that Judge Brown is "a particularly vulnerable incumbent" due to perceptions about her impartiality and the reactions of the District Attorney to her rulings. The District Attorney decided in 2025 to move "serious criminal cases" from her docket to other judges.
The story is illustrative of the potential challenges between fulfilling the judicial role and the demands of personal life. This is the work-life balance of which we hear so much.
Oregon, like other states, has a Code of Judicial Conduct. It includes various familiar provisions, though the organization is in "Rule" rather than "Canon" form.
Judges are to "act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary and the judicial system." Rule 2.1. Some might see a challenge in that, regarding the District Attorney's decision to publicly question impartiality. Impartiality is the Oregon Code at Rule 3.3.
The primacy rule is expressed similarly to other states, Rule 3.1:
"The duties of judicial office, as prescribed by law, shall take precedence over a judge's other professional activities."
That encapsulates the primacy of judicial responsibility. Judges are responsible for handling proceedings, writing orders, and managing dockets. The job requires being present each day for the expected an unexpected. Judges who are not in the office are not fulfilling that duty.
The Oregon Code directs "perform(ing) judicial and administrative duties competently and diligently." Rule 3.5. It also compels "cooperat(ing) with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business." But most compelling is the "Duty to Decide," which is paramount to the public responsibility of a judge:
"A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge, except when the judge permissibly disqualifies himself or herself or disqualification is required by Rule 3.10 or other law. " Rule 3.6.
It is amazing how many judges I have encountered over the years who ignore this duty to preside. They are quick to recuse or disqualify and to disregard their duty to "hear and decide matters assigned." Their focus and analysis may be difficult to comprehend.
The assigned docket is that judge's responsibility. Nonetheless, as the Presiding Judge noted here, there will be impracticality of that when on "vacation or out on sick leave." Vacations can be planned, but sick leave is usually unexpected unless for some scheduled medical procedure. There is a distinction between the unpredictability of illness and the surprise of an election opponent.
Finally, Oregon Rule 4, like other codes, requires a judge to "not participate in activities when the judge's conduct would: (A) interfere with the performance of judicial duties." That is, essentially, judicial duties come first for judges. The duties of being a judge take primacy over the privilege of running to be reelected as a judge.
In all, the outcome in this instance is not inconsistent with the provisions of many judicial conduct codes. The primacy of judicial responsibility, the duty to preside as assigned, diligence, and avoiding conflict are all common components of the various codes of judicial conduct.
Nonetheless, the focus in such a situation might be as simple as "public confidence in the judiciary and the judicial system." Does the judge's entreaty regarding reelection belong in an email to the other judges? Do the outside demands of campaigning, expected or not, rise to the emergent relief level that an illness or surgery would?
Ultimately, in this instance, the voters made their own decision about Judge Brown's service. The Oregonian reported later in May that she "lost her seat to (a) challenger" in the election, in an apparent landslide.
Willamette Week reported that the outcome was unusual. It noted that judicial elections rarely draw any challengers. The defeated judge alleged the challenger "lied his way into office," and suggested she would "set the record straight." Asked to comment, the successful challenger declined. At least as yet, no further news story has been located regarding the judge or her defeat.
Thus, there will not likely be any judicial qualification action regarding the email seeking support from peers to allow time for campaigning. That said, the request was curious at best.
