## Facts

- The Chief Judge of the Tenth Circuit identified an August 2018 misconduct complaint against a U.S. district judge under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364.
- A Special Committee was appointed under 28 U.S.C. § 353 and conducted interviews, gathered documents, and held a hearing at which the judge testified under oath.
- The Committee issued a written report with unanimous factual findings and recommendations; the judge submitted a written response.
- The Judicial Council found the judge gave preferential treatment and unwanted attention to female judiciary employees through sexually suggestive comments, inappropriate physical contact, and late-night messages, including conduct that continued after at least one employee told him to stop.
- The Council found the judge engaged in an extramarital sexual relationship with a person convicted of state felonies who was on probation, creating concerns about the appearance of susceptibility to influence or manipulation.
- The Council found habitual lateness for court proceedings and frequent unavailability that burdened staff and affected litigants and court operations.
- The Council found the judge admitted important facts and apologized but was not fully candid during the investigation, often acknowledging conduct only after being confronted with documentation.
- Additional allegations were dismissed when not established by a preponderance of the evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether sexual harassment of judiciary employees, an extramarital relationship with a felon on probation, and chronic tardiness/unavailability constitute “judicial misconduct” under 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364 and the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings.
2. What remedial or disciplinary measures were authorized and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 354(a) and the Rules, including whether referral to the Judicial Conference was warranted under § 354(b).

## Decision

- The Judicial Council unanimously found judicial misconduct based on (1) sexual harassment of judiciary employees, (2) an extramarital relationship with a convicted felon on probation, and (3) habitual tardiness and frequent unavailability.
- The Council issued a public order censuring the judge and detailing the misconduct findings.
- The Council imposed corrective measures within its statutory authority to address workplace conduct and performance of judicial duties.
- The Council referred the matter to the Judicial Conference of the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 354(b) for possible further action.
- The Council dismissed unproven allegations for lack of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial misconduct includes conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts. 28 U.S.C. § 351(a).
- The Rules treat unwanted, offensive sexual conduct, including sexual harassment, as judicial misconduct, particularly where it has no legitimate role in the workplace and is facilitated by supervisory authority.
- The Code of Conduct for United States Judges prohibits harassment of court personnel (Canon 3) and requires respect toward those with whom a judge deals in an official capacity, including avoidance of conduct reasonably interpreted as harassment.
- Personal relationships may constitute misconduct when they create an appearance of impropriety or risk to public confidence in judicial integrity and impartiality (Canon 2), including relationships suggesting vulnerability to outside influence.
- Persistent lateness and unavailability can constitute misconduct when they reflect a failure to perform judicial duties diligently and promptly (Canon 3) and impose burdens on staff, litigants, and court operations.
- Judicial Council remedies may include public censure and corrective actions under 28 U.S.C. § 354(a), and referral to the Judicial Conference under § 354(b) when the conduct may warrant further institutional review.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit Judicial Council concluded that repeated workplace sexual harassment, a relationship creating an appearance of improper susceptibility to influence, and chronic failure to meet core judicial obligations constituted judicial misconduct, warranting public censure, corrective measures, and referral to the Judicial Conference for possible further action.


In re Complaint Under the Judicial Conduct & Disability Act, No. 10-18-90022 (10th Cir. Jud. Council 2019)