While the gavel and robes of a judge still command respect in the legal profession, instances of judicial misconduct highlight the ongoing significance of ethics in this esteemed role. Notably, the case of Gregory Kreis, a Humboldt County Superior Court judge in Northern California, reflects this ongoing necessity for professionalism.
The California Commission on Judicial Performance (CCJP) has initiated formal proceedings against Judge Kreis, accusing him of “willful misconduct in office, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.” The case against Kreis features 19 distinct charges of judicial misbehavior. These charges extend from minor inappropriate actions at social events to severe offenses in his official capacity.
Perhaps what stands out most from this is that misconduct—no matter how minor it may seem—can lead to significant consequences. Kreis recently lost a primary challenge to contract defense attorney April Van Dyke, who won with 60% of the vote. Kreis has denied the allegations of drug use, ethical infractions, and sexual harassment. However, the incident stresses, once again, how vital a judge’s conduct is to maintaining their position on the bench.
Likewise, legal professionals can court trouble with ill-conceived stunts. One such instance involves Ben Aderholt, whose ill-mannered letter to a judge on his firm’s letterhead led to repercussions, serving as a reminder of the fundamental lesson drummed into us from day one in law school: judges deserve respect.
Similarly, Biglaw lawyer Mark Perry felt the sting of attempting to circumvent standard procedure. Perry tried to bypass the page limitation on a court document by incorporating by reference 2,000 words from other documents into a brief. This effort was frowned upon by the Federal Circuit Court, a revelation which serves as a cautionary tale for attorneys seeking to skirt regulation.
Finally, another example of legal mischief is Brian Manookian. The attorney adopted an intimidating and harassing communication style, especially towards opposing counsel. The Tennessee Supreme Court eventually disbarred Manookian as a result.
These cases of misconduct are indeed compelling, yet a question presents itself: Does there exist a significant gender differential in occurrences of such behavior in the legal profression? Notwithstanding the gravity of these incidents, it certainly offers food for thought and an opportunity for further investigation into patterns of legal misconduct and their implications within the profession.