Monday, March 30, 2026
Page 1
CJP Report Reveals Private Admonishments to Two Judges Based on Perceived Bigotry
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The state’s judicial disciplinary body disclosed yesterday in its annual report that two judges received private admonishments last year based on the appearance of bigotry.
In 2025, the Commission on Judicial Performance (“CJP”) reported, it received complaints concerning 1,116 active and former Superior Court judges and appellate court justices and 78 commissioners, launching 99 preliminary investigations. It recited that, as to judges and justices, it took 15 public actions—three censures and 12 admonishments—as well as issuing nine private admonishments and 12 advisory letters.
The CJP said it publicly admonished two former commissioners and privately scolded one other.
Brief summaries of circumstances giving rise to private admonishments included these, relating to perceived bias on the part of judges:
•“The judge made condescending, sarcastic, and discourteous remarks, including remarks conveying the appearance of bias based on race or national origin, to self-represented defendants in three criminal matters. The judge also employed gratuitous profanity. In aggravation, the judge had prior discipline for similar misconduct. In mitigation, the judge successfully completed the commission’s mentoring program.”
•“In two different civil matters, the judge made undignified and demeaning comments to and about litigants, which conveyed the appearance of bias, including on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, and gender.”
Other conduct giving rise to private admonishments is described by the CJP in these words:
•“The judge made intemperate and inappropriate statements about the judge’s assignment to court staff, judicial officers, and attorneys, and in open court. The judge contacted attorneys in a pending matter over which another judge presided, giving the appearance the judge was acting out of pique or in retaliation. The judge made remarks that were critical of a statute and gave the appearance the judge did not intend to follow the law. The judge’s misconduct was aggravated by prior discipline.”
•“The judge engaged in a romantic relationship with a court employee over whom the judge, at times, had supervisory responsibilities and failed to disclose the relationship to court administration. The judge also used profanity and disparaged other judicial officers, attorneys, and the judge’s assignment in the judge’s communications with the employee, some of which occurred on the court’s computer system.”
•“The judge made social media posts that constituted improper fundraising, suggested alignment with law enforcement, and used the prestige of office and the judicial title to promote charitable organizations and a for-profit business. The judge also publicly took a position on a controversial issue that could come before the court and made public remarks that gave the appearance of bias in favor of the local district attorney. The judge’s misconduct was aggravated by prior discipline for similar misconduct. The judge’s misconduct was mitigated by corrective actions the judge undertook.”
No judge was removed from office in 2025. Two disability retirements were granted and, the CJP reported, no applications for such retirements were pending as of the end of the year.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company