Written by Cynthia Gray, former director of the Center for Judicial Ethics, the Judicial Conduct Dispatch is a free weekly newsletter that briefly summarizes new judicial discipline decisions, formal complaints, and other recent developments in judicial conduct. Paid subscribers (at $5 a month, $55 a year) also receive at least 2 additional posts a week – last week there were 3 – with extra content, for example, brief summaries of judicial discipline cases as they are released, longer summaries of some cases, summaries of selected advisory opinions, and deeper dives into judicial ethics topics. Paid subscribers also help ensure the continued publication of the free newsletter and have access to the archives. Group subscriptions for discounted annual plans are available at https:// cynthiagrayjudicialconduct.substack.com/subscribe?group=true.
None of the views expressed in this newsletter are those of my previous employers. I was Director of the Center for Judicial Ethics from October 1990, first when the CJE was part of the American Judicature Society, then after it became part of the National Center for State Courts in 2014, and then as Director Emeritus from 2023 until March 2025.
The newsletter also includes a picture of a plant-of-the-week taken on a walk through Chicago’s Lincoln Park, on a visit to the Lincoln Park Conservatory, or of my own houseplants.
California Commission admonishes former judge for his demeanor
Louisiana Commission recommends suspension for judge’s campaign conduct
New and proposed changes to the Michigan code of judicial conduct
New York judge censured for treatment of prosecutors
Accepting an agreed statement of facts and recommendation, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly censured Judge Naita Semaj for being impatient and discourteous to assistant district attorneys on numerous occasions and demonstrating at least the appearance of bias against prosecutors, including ejecting 3 ADAs from her courtroom without justification; yelling at ADAs in at least 3 matters; making sarcastic comments in other matters; and cavalierly commenting on an ADA’s pregnancy and suggesting that the ADA use her pregnancy to get leeway from male supervisors. In the Matter of Semaj, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct May 30, 2025). A longer summary of the case was posted as extra content for paid subscribers of the Judicial Conduct Dispatch last Friday.
California Commission admonishes former judge for his demeanor
The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished former judge James Kaddo for a pattern of discourteous, undignified, and impatient behavior directed at potential jurors, attorneys, and parties and, in some instances, conveying the appearance of embroilment and bias on the basis of gender or race. Public Admonishment of Kaddo (California Commission on Judicial Performance July 15, 2025). A longer summary of the admonishment will be extra content for paid subscribers later this week.
Alaska Commission recommends reprimand for judge who delayed a hearing to watch a sporting event on TV and reenacted courtroom testimony
Based on agreed findings of fact and the judge’s consent, the Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct has recommended that Judge Romano DiBenedetto be publicly reprimanded for (1) delaying a motion hearing for 1 hour because he was watching a televised sporting event and then telling the lawyers that he had gotten lost; and (2) on more than one occasion, in the presence of court staff, attempting to reenact testimony or comments of participants in proceedings, including persons who are members of ethnic groups other than his own.
Louisiana Commission recommends suspension for judge’s campaign conduct
According to nola.com, the Louisiana Judiciary Commission has recommended that Judge Jennifer Medley be suspended for 1 month without pay for ads she ran during her 2020 campaign attacking her opponent, the incumbent judge, and for falsely claiming that a $100,000 personal loan to her was for property improvements when it was for her campaign.
Michigan judge files answer to complaint
As reported in the June 11th issue of the Judicial Conduct Dispatch, the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission filed a complaint alleging that Judge Kristin Hartig (1) refused for 6 months to provide the Commission with a psychological evaluation it had ordered; (2) repeatedly attempted “to assert control over departments and employees over whom she has no authority” and treated court employees, court administrators, chief judges, and others discourteously; (3) dismissed 4 criminal cases with prejudice to punish the prosecution rather than on the merits of the cases; and (4) made a false statement in response to a letter from the Commission.
The judge has now filed her answer.
With respect to her refusal to provide the Commission with a psychological evaluation, the judge argues that under the Commission rules, a judge is only required to submit to one physical or mental evaluation and that the Commission had been provided with a report prepared by the Michigan Lawyers and Judges Assistance Program after she had voluntarily complied with its request that she receive an evaluation from the LJAP. The Commission had then ordered the judge to attend a facility called All Points North in Colorado, and it is the report from All Points North that the judge did not provide the Commission. In addition to arguing that she is not required to produce a second report, the judge argues that there are “serious concerns regarding the accuracy” of the All Points North report, including “the lack of any specialization in the evaluation or treatment of lawyers and judges” and the “clear financial motivation” All Points North has in its evaluation process, report, and recommendations.
The judge denies the allegations regarding obstructing the administration of her court and argues:
Throughout her tenure, Judge Hartig has worked diligently to attempt to ensure the professional operation of her courtroom, in order to protect the interests of the litigants appearing before her. Judge Hartig strives to respect court users and their time, and does so by attempting to encourage court administration to be professional, respectful and accurate in their duties. She facilitates the performance of the administrative responsibilities of other court officials and seeks to ensure that the court issues accurate, timely orders, timely and effective delivery of judgments of sentence to the Oakland County jail, accurate probation reports and respectful treatment of all court users by all court staff.
With respect to her dismissal of criminal cases, the judge explains that “the conduct by the members of the county prosecutor’s office was not consistent with their professional responsibilities,” and that the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission recently cautioned them in response to grievances that she filed. Attached to her answer are letters from the Attorney Grievance Commission to an attorney with the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office and to Karen McDonald, the Oakland County Prosecutor. The letter to McDonald states that the Attorney Grievance Commission is closing the judge’s request that she be investigated but cautions her that “if an assistant prosecutor cannot attend a scheduled hearing, she should ensure that the office follows proper procedure to request an adjournment.” The letter to the individual attorney is similar.
New and proposed changes to the Michigan code of judicial conduct
The Michigan code of judicial conduct currently provides in Canon 3A(14):
Without regard to a person's race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic, a judge should treat every person fairly, with courtesy and respect. To the extent possible, a judge should require staff, court officials, and others who are subject to the judge's direction and control to provide such fair, courteous, and respectful treatment to persons who have contact with the court.
In March, Michigan Supreme Court asked for public comment on proposed amendments that would change the provision to:
A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, based upon race, color, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, height, weight, sexual orientation, marital status, familial status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.
This proposal is based on Rule 2.3(B) of the 2007 American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct, which is based on Canon 3B(5) of the 1990 model. Over 40 states have adopted a similar rule. 10 or so of those states have added to the list of expressly identified, prohibited biases. Similarly, the proposed Michigan version would add color, height, weight, and familial status to the ABA list and uses gender identity or expression instead of sexual orientation.
The Court received 57 comments on the proposal. According to bloomberglaw.com, “while some of the 57 letters supported the proposal, most didn’t.”
In May, the Court amended the state’s code, effective September 1, to allow judges to “make reasonable efforts, consistent with the law, court rules, and rules of evidence, to facilitate the ability of all litigants, including self-represented litigants, to be fairly heard.” The model code has a similar, although not identical, provision in comment 4 to Rule 2.2, and over 35 jurisdictions have such provisions already although there is a lot of variation on the specifics.
The Michigan version, in Canon 3A(4), states:
(a) In the interest of ensuring fairness and access to justice, judges may make reasonable efforts that help self-represented litigants to understand the proceedings and applicable procedural requirements, secure legal assistance, and be heard according to law. The judge should be careful that the reasonable efforts do not give self-represented litigants an unfair advantage or create an appearance of judicial partiality. In some circumstances, particular efforts for self-represented litigants are required by decisional or other law. In other circumstances, potential efforts are within the judge’s discretion.
(b) Reasonable efforts that a judge may take in the exercise of such discretion include, but are not limited to:
(i) Construe pleadings to facilitate consideration of the issues raised.
(ii) Provide brief information or explanation about the proceedings.
(iii) Ask neutral questions to elicit or clarify information.
(iv) Modify the traditional manner or order of taking evidence.
(v) Refer litigants to any resources available to assist in the preparation of the case or enforcement and compliance with any order.
(vi) Inform litigants what will be happening next in the case and what is expected of them.
Texas Commission suspends indicted judge without pay
The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct suspended Judge Linda Wallace without pay following her indictment by a state grand jury on charges that she pressured a potential witness in a criminal proceeding, whom she supervised at the witness’s employment, to withhold her testimony. According to KLTV.com, in the underlying criminal proceeding, Judge Robert Franklin has been charged with 2 counts of misdemeanor official oppression for coercing a woman who worked under his supervisorship to sign a false affidavit and telling a man to accept a plea agreement in a criminal case.
Plant of the week
Queen of the Prairie, next to North Pond, Lincoln Park, Chicago, taken Sunday July 13, 2025.
