An Unacceptable Message

A Michigan Tri-County Hearing Panel has disbarred former judge Jarod Calkins in the wake of his conviction by plea to four counts of felony misconduct in office.

The Monroe News reported on the crimes. 

Victims ranged from 19 to 22 and each was described as being vulnerable and naive, according to prosecutors.

Encounters with Calkins were described to have been initiated through dating sites like OkCupid and Tinder. Calkins initiated the encounters, which were held at area motels and his home; the women were not soliciting.

While the women said they initially thought the encounters would be “fun” or “playful,” they said activities became “painful” and “torturous.”

One woman said an encounter, which included choking and electrocution, felt “like a beating” and created bruises and welts that lasted up to two weeks and left her with permanent nerve damage.

Another victim said she was “frightened for (her) life.”

“He would pull me in with sweet messages and then torture me when we were together,” Victim 1 said. “He was aggressive and used physical control.”

Most victims said they now suffer from post-traumatic stress, have struggled with trusting men and must attend frequent counseling sessions.

The bar proceedings were delayed by his incarceration and he participated by video.

As to the crimes

Respondent testified  that beginning in late 2015, he opened up accounts on dating sites, tinder and OkCupid, created profiles and titled them “Sugar Daddy Looking.” Respondent received responses from various women and in his conversations with them, when they began to discuss meeting up and engaging in sexual activity, the women wanted to know what they were going to get out of the relationship, since he advertised he was a “Sugar Daddy.” Respondent agreed to pay them cash or gie them gifts in order to engage in sex with them. Respondent stated it was obviously solicitation of prostitution. Respondent further testified that at least two of the women were interested in BDSM activities. Respondent stated that of the four women he met with, two were interested in BDSM activities, met with him and they engaged in those activities on multiple occasions. He maintained that those activities were consensual. As for the other two women, respondent testified that he met one of them only once and no BDSM was involved, and the other woman there was no sexual activity whatever. 

He explained that he “was under extreme stress, both at home and work” and sought a lesser sanction. 

The panel on sanction

Respondent, a public officer entrusted with important civic and judicial responsibilities, admits to having repeatedly engaged in criminal conduct, always aware that it was illegal and that its exposure would have profoundly deleterious impacts on both the bar and the judiciary. In seeking to avoid disbarment, respondent principally relied on his contention that the women he illegally solicited ad seriatim and/or with whom he engaged in sexual relations gave their consent to all his conduct, including the conduct that he himself admitted was sadomasochistic. The contention holds no sway. The issue of consent is irrelevant; it does not lessen the illegality of respondent’s conduct and the adverse impact it had on his victims, society and its faith in government… meaningful “consent,” as that term is commonly understood…could not plausibly have been given by respondent’s victims, all of whom were young, disadvantaged and susceptible to exploitation and/or traumatization.

Exercising discretion to disbar

Were it not to do so, the hearing panel would be sending unacceptable messages about the seriousness of respondent’s misconduct. It inexcusably would be suggesting that society need not meaningfully confront the destructive and exploitative behaviors brought to light by the “Me Too” movement. 

Hearing Panel sanction orders may be reviewed by the Attorney Discipline Board. (Mike Frisch)