Courts

Who Wants to Be Punxsutawney Phil?

The hits just keep on coming.

By  
on

I don’t know about you, but I feel like Bill Murray in the movie Groundhog Day.

I need to take a break from “all Covid-19 coverage all the time,” and so I’m returning to one of my favorite topics “What were they thinking?” Judges, lawyers, and even a law student this go-around.

Let’s start with the Superior Court judge in Ventura County, just north of Los Angeles on the coast. The California Commission on Judicial Performance has publicly censured Judge Jeffrey Bennet for making stupid, bone-headed, racist and sexist remarks. The conduct had been going on for more than a decade until the whistle was finally blown.

Examples of remarks included, but not limited to (as we lawyers like to say), the following:

When an African-American defendant appeared in a criminal matter, the judge thought that he was being evasive and told the defendant to stop “shucking and jiving.”

More than one time in the presence of a female deputy district attorney, the judge said that he was “the only one in the courthouse with the balls to make that ruling” or words to that effect.

“Balls” was a popular word in the judge’s vocabulary. After he admitted that he had ruled incorrectly on a motion to suppress, he said that he had probably had the “biggest balls in the courthouse” to admit that error. He made a gesture in his genital area. How did he know that he had the “biggest balls in the courthouse?” Did he do a size comparison? Did he “drop trou” and compare?

Sponsored

The judge commented on the number of peremptory challenges that the District Attorney’s Office was filing, asking, “Why are you guys papering me?”  I could go on and on, but you get the flavor of the conduct. Exhibit 1 for a case of robe-itis.

The Commission found that the conduct (and there were 26 examples) violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics and constituted prejudicial misconduct. The judge’s comments were “…offensive, undignified, dishonest, discourteous, sexist, profane, and create the appearance of bias and retaliation.” Pretty complete catalogue of adjectives.

Often in these cases, the judge under scrutiny denies the charges, claims victimhood, or in some other way tries to offload his own responsibility for ending up in this pickle. Kudos to this judge who didn’t try to squirm his way out. He stipulated to the truth of the charges and that was a significant mitigating factor that prompted the Commission to impose public censure, one step below removal.

What this shows is that the Commission appreciates “coming clean.” An example of throwing oneself on the mercy of the court, so to speak. This judge did and has saved his job. Whether he’ll keep it in the future is to be determined.

Meanwhile, two judges in New York have resigned after pleading guilty to felonies.

Sponsored

One was for garden-variety tax evasion. The other judge resigned after pleading guilty to — wait for it — attempted burglary based on the theft of an intern’s panties.

No, I am not making this up and yes, I am going to resist the temptation to let loose with a string of underwear puns, although the temptation is almost overwhelming.

Then there’s the matter of the attorney who was sanctioned $1,000 along with attorneys fees and costs for interrupting a deposition 145 times and making 106 objections. The deposition transcript was only 255 pages long. So, if you divide 255 by 145….

Do you think that attorneys will ever learn to conduct depositions without sniping? Do attorneys know how this kind of conduct looks to a court that will have to rule on what usually are trivial disputes of ego? Will we ever grow up? Or has the profession become the playground for kids who don’t — or won’t — learn how to play together?

Then there’s a New Jersey judge who told the wife and the girlfriend, in a hearing on what to do with certain provocative photos, that they had been played by the husband/boyfriend. The judge called him a “knucklehead.” (I haven’t heard that term used in years.) That was not the first time that this judge had made intemperate remarks. This time he was censured.

The judge had previously been ordered to take sensitivity training some years back after receiving private reprimands for discourtesy. What is the “stickiness” of sensitivity training? How long does it last? Should judges be required to take sensitivity training every certain number of years? Of course, even if they complete the courses, there’s no guarantee that anything learned in the training will last longer than the length of the class.

A lawyer in Kansas was suspended for two years for having forged the signatures of a judge and a clerk on a court document. What was she thinking? There were other instances of misconduct that the Kansas Supreme Court also considered. Why would anyone ever risk a forgery of any document, let alone a court document? Mental health issues played a part in the misconduct, which is why it’s so important to pay attention to those concerns and not ignore them.

Have you ever run from police after stiffing the tab for a $200 lap dance? This attorney has.

And last, but not least, there is the Harvard Law student who brought a weapon to his Zoom class. I didn’t know that there was a show-and-tell portion in any law school class. Is it now “bring a gun, go to law school?”  There are no words.

Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

 

Topics

, ,