Less Than Candid

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has reprimanded a family court judge

This matter arises from the recommendation of the West Virginia Judicial Hearing Board (hereinafter “the Board”) that respondent Deanna R. Rock, Family Court Judge of the Twenty-Third Family Court Circuit, be disciplined for three violations of the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct. These violations stem from alleged misrepresentations made by respondent to disciplinary authorities regarding her involvement with a letter written by a family court member of the Board; the letter addressed a pending disciplinary matter and lodged allegations of misconduct against Judicial Disciplinary Counsel (“JDC”). The Special Judicial Investigation Commission levied eight charges against respondent regarding those alleged misrepresentations and the Board found that respondent committed only three of the eight charged violations. As a result, the Board recommended that she be reprimanded and required to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Respondent objects to the Board’s findings as to the three violations and asks to be exonerated as to those charges as well, claiming that her statements about her involvement with the letter were not intentionally false, but the result of faulty memory. Special Judicial Disciplinary Counsel (“SJDC”) likewise objects to the recommended discipline and requests that the Court find respondent committed the five additional charged violations and enhance her sanction to a censure, $5,000 fine, and suspension until the end of her term.

This Court has before it all matters of record, including the parties’ stipulations, a transcript of the evidentiary hearing conducted by the Board and the exhibits introduced, as well as the briefs and arguments of counsel. Based on this Court’s independent review of the record, we agree with the Board’s conclusion that respondent committed two violations of Rule 2.16(A) and one violation of Rule 1.1 of the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct; however, we also find that respondent’s conduct violated Rule 1.2 as alleged in the statement of charges. We nonetheless adopt the Board’s recommended discipline and find it appropriate that respondent be reprimanded and directed to pay the costs of the proceedings.

The background

Respondent has been a member of the West Virginia State Bar since 2004 and was elected to serve as a Family Court Judge in the 23rd Family Court Circuit for a term commencing in 2017. For much of the pertinent time period, respondent was also the President of the West Virginia Family Court Judicial Association (“WVFCJA”). She has never been previously disciplined as a lawyer or judge. Although respondent’s conduct in this matter relates to alleged misrepresentations to disciplinary authorities, those alleged misrepresentations were provided in conjunction with and/or relate to two separate disciplinary matters. To provide necessary context for respondent’s conduct, our discussion requires that we delve into those matters and the surrounding circumstances.

THE GOLDSTON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

In late 2020, judicial complaints were filed against two family court judges for conducting so-called “judicial views” or “home visits” wherein they would personally inspect property and/or enter the homes of divorce litigants in proceedings before them for purposes of resolving personal property disputes. The most notable of these judicial complaints involved Family Court Judge Louise Goldston (“Goldston”); a majority of this Court determined that such “views” constitute warrantless searches and that Goldston should be censured and fined $1,000.00 for her conduct with regard to one such search. See In re Goldston, 246 W. Va. 61, 73, 866 S.E.2d 126, 138 (2021) (finding Goldston “left her role as an impartial judicial officer and participated in an executive function when she entered the . . . home to oversee the search”).

As President of the WVFCJA—as well as a colleague and friend—respondent communicated with Goldston during her disciplinary proceedings. For purposes of those proceedings, respondent also collaborated behind the scenes with other family court judges in defense of the propriety of the “judicial views.”  Respondent believed that ethical violations attached to these “views” could negatively impact the family court judiciary. Regardless, Goldston stipulated to various violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct in her disciplinary proceeding relating to one particular “view” and  requested that respondent and/or other family court judges send character letters to JDC onher behalf.

Respondent and two other family court judges—David Greenberg and Mary Ellen Griffith—sent letters in support of Goldston’s character to JDC in October 2020. In response to those letters, JDC Brian Lanham telephoned respondent and advised that the letters had been presented to the Judicial Investigation Commission (the “Commission”), which determined that the letters violated various provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct including Rule 3.3 which provides that a judge “shall not testify as a character witness in a judicial, administrative, or other adjudicatory proceeding or otherwise vouch for the character of a person in a legal proceeding, except when subpoenaed to testify.” JDC Lanham followed up on this call with a confirmatory letter to respondent and the others, which he characterized as a “warning letter.”

The Goldston hearing was held 

Goldston’s disciplinary hearing was held on January 15, 2021; shortly after that hearing, JDC Teresa Tarr moved to disqualify Board member Family Court Judge Glen Stotler (“Stotler”) from the proceedings. JDC contended that, based upon the manner and content of comments made by Stotler during the disciplinary hearing suggesting the charges were meritless, Stotler demonstrated bias and prejudice against JDC. Stotler refused the recusal request. On March 16, 2021, the Board issued its recommended decision in the Goldston matter, with Stotler dissenting and opining that, despite Goldston’s stipulations, no violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct had been established Both Goldston and JDC objected to the recommended findings and the matter was placed upon this Court’s argument docket.

THE “STOTLER LETTER”

Shortly after the Board issued its recommended decision in the Goldston matter, Stotler submitted a letter dated March 25, 2021, to then-Chief Justice Evan Jenkins lodging a complaint against and requesting an investigation of JDC (the “Stotler letter”).

That complaint was dismissed

On May 13, 2021, the Investigative Panel of the West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board issued its report on the investigation of JDC Tarr and Lanham, finding no merit to Stotler’s complaint and closing the matter. On May 25, 2021, Supreme Court Administrative Director Joseph Armstrong filed a complaint against Stotler with the Commission with regard to the Stotler letter. A formal statement of charges was filed against him in March 2022.

THE “MOATS LETTER”

Shortly after the Stotler letter was sent, on April 6, 2021, respondent and Judges Greenberg and Griffith jointly wrote to Lisa Tackett, Director of the Division of Court Services, regarding the “warning letter” JDC Lanham sent them in October about the Goldston character letters. They questioned JDC’s authority to issue a warning letter and expressed concern about the effect of the warning letter on their disciplinary record, as well as its potential use against them in future matters. They claimed that the West Virginia Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedure contained no authority for the issuance of a “warning,” particularly without permitting a judge to challenge JDC’s characterization of their conduct. In that regard, on April 23, 2021, respondent and the others jointly wrote to JDC Tarr and requested an advisory opinion on JDC’s authority to issue warnings.

On April 27, 2021, JDC Tarr wrote to respondent and the others notifying them that she and JDC Lanham had disqualified themselves from handling complaints “involving Judge Stotler or any other Judge who may have helped in the submission of [the Stotler letter]” and that, because the requested advisory opinion “relates in part to the Stotler matter,” they were disqualifying themselves as to the request as well. (Emphasis added). Per emails from respondent regarding the letter, as well as her subsequent testimony, she took umbrage at the suggestion— under her reading of the letter—that JDC Tarr was accusing her of having “helped with” the Stotler letter.

In response, on April 30, 2021, respondent and Judges Greenberg and Griffith jointly wrote to Judge Moats as Chair of the Commission (the “Moats letter”) to express concerns about JDC Tarr’s recusal letter. The Moats letter states that JDC Tarr’s recusal letter contains a “strong and unfounded implication that each of us were involved in the drafting and the submission of [the Stotler letter]” and that this implication is “completely without merit or foundation[.]” The three judges denied that they were “involved with the concept or writing of [the Stotler letter]” and stated “there is NO association between the three of us and the writing or sending of Judge Stotler’s letter.” (Emphasis added). The Moats letter is signed by all three family court judges including respondent.

Findings with respect to her conduct in the disciplinary proceeding rejected the contention that her evidence was the product of an imperfect memory

Here, respondent was found to be serially less than candid with disciplinary authorities—once while under oath. This misconduct strikes at the very heart of respondent’s expectations of litigants and attorneys who appear before her—that they will be truthful and candid in adherence to their oath and in deference to her authority over the proceedings… 

It is of no moment then that the general public may be uninterested in or unaware of the minutiae of the Stotler or Moats letters or respondent’s involvement with them; it is her lack of candor—while under oath and to those charged with policing the judiciary—that unquestionably erodes public confidence in the judiciary at large. The Court has observed that the public has a rightful expectation of scrupulous honesty from its judiciary—in both fact and appearance…

The court concluded that a reprimand was the appropriate sanction. (Mike Frisch)