Judge Ross Sent Clerks New Apologies After First Is Shared (1)

An Atlanta federal judge who had an affair in her chambers sent her former clerks revised apology letters, hours after a media report that she sent three-line letters that didn’t address her conduct as required by the judiciary.

Judge Eleanor Ross of the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia sent the revised apology letters on Thursday, according to one of her former clerks, who was interviewed by the judiciary as part of its misconduct inquiry.

The judiciary, after finding she violated judicial conduct rules, told Ross in a misconduct decision released last month to write apology letters to her clerks that “should be sufficiently specific” to “make clear” to the clerks what conduct she is apologizing for.

The New York Times reported Thursday that Ross had sent her former clerks an identical, three-line letter that apologized for “not taking steps to ensure” their clerkships were “a more positive experience,” without describing the conduct at issue.

Judge Eleanor Ross of the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia sent an apology note to clerks following a judicial misconduct finding.

A copy of the earlier letter was also shared with Bloomberg Law by the former clerk. The former clerk, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he felt the initial apology letter fell short and didn’t comply with the judiciary panel’s order that the apology letter be specific to the conduct.

Chief Judge William Pryor of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit sent Ross a letter Wednesday, which he shared with Bloomberg Law, stating that four of Ross’ former clerks wrote him that they don’t believe the initial apology letter meets the recommendation to be specific. The Eleventh Circuit covers federal trial courts in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama.

Pryor asked her to respond, by June 12, to these allegations and on “whether you failed to send adequate letters of apology to your former clerks” in what his letter refers to as a second judicial conduct inquiry.

In a follow-up letter Thursday, Pryor thanked Ross for her response and said he decided not to identify a new misconduct complaint in light of his review of her revised apology letters and public disclosures to the New York Times.

Misconduct Findings

The revised apology letters come over two weeks after the judiciary released a special committee report detailing misconduct findings against Ross, a Barack Obama appointee who joined the federal bench in Atlanta in 2014. Though the report didn’t name the judge, Bloomberg Law has identified her as Ross.

Pryor’s letter appears to be the first time a judiciary official has publicly confirmed Ross was the subject of the misconduct inquiry, as she was unnamed in the judiciary’s report.

The committee found that Ross had sexual intercourse in her chambers with a police commander, during business hours in earshot of her law clerks, creating an “extremely uncomfortable and troubling” workplace environment for her clerks. The report also found that she initially lied about her conduct to judges investigating it, and that she improperly attended a campaign event.

However, the judiciary decided to reprimand Ross privately. The judicial council also barred her from serving as chief judge of her district and in any judiciary leadership roles. That penalty has drawn scrutiny from legal experts who saw it as too lenient. Two House Republicans from Georgia have introduced articles of impeachment against Ross.

Tonja Jacobi, a law professor at Emory University who studies judicial conduct and politics, said Ross’ initial letter published by the Times was “completely inadequate.” For clerks reporting misconduct, the judiciary’s decision to reprimand her privately makes it “very difficult to say, well they took your concerns very seriously,” she said.

The former clerk said he appreciated that the judiciary took the allegations and its investigation seriously. However, he said the decision to reprimand her privately shows the judiciary still has more work to do in addressing allegations of judicial misconduct.

It would still be meaningful for the judiciary to publicly confirm Ross’ identity, he said, both to boost public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary as an institution and to communicate to future clerks that their allegations will be taken seriously and met with meaningful accountability.