The complainant alleged that the judge, during a child custody proceeding, refused to allow the complainant’s fiancée to sit at the case conference table

20050007 - The complainant alleged that the judge, during a child custody proceeding, refused to allow the complainant’s fiancée to sit at the case conference table. The complainant alleged that the judge said “if you don’t shut up, I’m going to throw you out.” He also said that the judge made sarcastic comments about the fiancée after ordering that she leave the courtroom.

The Chairperson of the Judicial Conduct Committee requested court transcripts and written comments from the judge and the judge’s Chief Justice. The judge explained that the complainant’s fiancée had disrupted the proceedings by speaking without being addressed. The woman was sitting at the Case Conference table although she was not a party to the proceedings. The judge’s exact words of warning had been, “This isn’t a time for you to chat. You’re not a party here, so I’m going to ask you to sit in the back and I will not ask you to leave if you can sit in the back.” Later in the course of the proceedings, the woman was again speaking without being addressed and, at one point, interrupted the proceedings by laughing out loud. At that point, the judge said, “Ma’am, are you laughing? Wait outside. You, out.” The judge acknowledge that she spoke very directly, but that this was necessary to maintain control of the proceedings. She also offered her apologies to the complainant and his fiancée if they were offended.

After reviewing all the relevant information, the Chairperson found that the judge’s remarks, given the overall context, did not constitute misconduct. He indicated that judges have a responsibility to maintain firm control of proceedings. A review of all transcript of proceedings did not support the allegation that the judge was unprofessional or sarcastic. The Chairperson also advised that it was normal for non-parties to be excluded from the case conference table.

The judge’s comments, and the Chairperson’s conclusions, were shared with the complainant and the file was closed.